Adding Pixel Layers to Vector Layer With Transparency Gradient Not Applying to Pixel Layer

[awakenedbyowls]

I want to add some effects to about a dozen different layers I have a transparency gradient applied to - but the transparency gradient doesn't have effect on the pixel layer - sorry but what use is that ?

Now I have to reapply the transparency gradients on a dozen layers all over the place

🤦‍♂️

[R C-R]

If you can provide a sample file (or at least the fully expanded Layers panel) it would be much easier to see what you are working with & perhaps what can be done to get what you want.

[awakenedbyowls]

Sure - but is it because the software is supposed to do this and needs fixed or because something wrong my end

Can we look into that first before I provide an example file ?

[walt.farrell]

6 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

Can we look into that first before I provide an example file

Probably not, as the file will help us understand what it is you're doing or trying to do.

[awakenedbyowls]

5 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Probably not, as the file will help us understand what it is you're doing or trying to do.

I explained what I am doing - in I think plain English that made sense ?

I know it helps sometimes but really - does every question I ask on here have to require a screenshot or video ?

[awakenedbyowls]

Vector layer with transparency gradient

Add previously made Pixel Layer to Vector Layer so it is now the Parent Layer

Transparency gradient has no effect on child/pixel layer

Is that what it's meant to do or an oversight in the design of the platform or what?

Does any one understand what I mean or will I just post all my questions as pictorial representations 

[walt.farrell]

40 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

Does any one understand what I mean or will I just post all my questions as pictorial representations 

That's better, but (for example) I think there are two ways the pixel layer could be a child of the vector layer: clipping, or masking. We can't be sure which you have done.

And it would be much easier to look at, and see what's happening, and be sure we understood, and experiment, if we had a sample. Or at least screenshots.

So yes, we prefer having screenshots and samples because it makes everything simpler and helps ensure correct answers.

We also like having the description in words of what you think you've done, as that can be important and helpful, too.

[awakenedbyowls]

12 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

That's better, but (for example) I think there are two ways the pixel layer could be a child of the vector layer: clipping, or masking. We can't be sure which you have done.

And it would be much easier to look at, and see what's happening, and be sure we understood, and experiment, if we had a sample. Or at least screenshots.

So yes, we prefer having screenshots and samples because it makes everything simpler and helps ensure correct answers.

We also like having the description in words of what you think you've done, as that can be important and helpful, too.

No there's no masking involved - just a standard hierarchy of layering without anything else added 

If there was masking involved I would have mentioned it 

[StuartRc]

Apply group to pixel object and then transparency

[awakenedbyowls]

3 minutes ago, StuartRc said:

Apply group to pixel object and then transparency

I know

This is not the issue

[awakenedbyowls]

Must be a bug then

Yay for V2

[StuartRc]

really!

Transparency is a vector tool function NOT a raster tool. Therefore you cannot apply it to px. It is not a bug.

[v_kyr]

Assuming Designer is meant here, that should usually work for the Transp tool ...

 

... where the Fill tool (gradient) in contrast to that will not really. - FX gradient overlays on the other hand should instead work too.

[awakenedbyowls]

23 minutes ago, StuartRc said:

really!

Transparency is a vector tool function NOT a raster tool. Therefore you cannot apply it to px. It is not a bug.

What is the difference between making the pixel layer into a one child parent group or adding it to a vector layer ?

I THOUGHT making the pixel layer into a subset of another layer was EQUIVALENT TO adding a vector layer component over it - and it seems to apply transparency gradients there so why the hell doesn't it when I add a pixel layer to a vector layer with a transparency gradient already applied ?

I would have thought that by doing so I would be applying whatever effects are applied to that layer to the pixel layer I am adding as a child layer !

Sorry but I just find basic logic helps sometimes - otherwise what exactly are hierarchies for ?

[lepr]

8 hours ago, awakenedbyowls said:

Vector layer with transparency gradient

Add previously made Pixel Layer to Vector Layer so it is now the Parent Layer

Transparency gradient has no effect on child/pixel layer

Is that what it's meant to do or an oversight in the design of the platform or what?

 

 

First, notice that the same absence of transparency occurs with clip-nested vector children and clip-nested Pixel children, and so there is nothing special about the child being a Pixel in your scenario. You probably realise that, but some readers may become sidetracked by general differences between raster and vector objects.

I share your expectation of the transparency affecting parent and children as a whole.

When there is no clip-nested child, the whole object is given transparency, as expected. 

However, the attached image shows that when there is one or more clip-nested child, the parent object's fill is given transparency and, separately, the parent object's stroke is given transparency, and clip-nested children are unaffected.

This may be a bug, or maybe a deliberate (peculiar) design decision for the software, but I suspect Serif would describe it as "by design" which can be translated as "an unforeseen consequence of the design".

 

[awakenedbyowls]

10 hours ago, lepr said:

 

 

First, notice that the same absence of transparency occurs with clip-nested vector children and clip-nested Pixel children, and so there is nothing special about the child being a Pixel in your scenario. You probably realise that, but some readers may become sidetracked by general differences between raster and vector objects.

I share your expectation of the transparency affecting parent and children as a whole.

When there is no clip-nested child, the whole object is given transparency, as expected. 

However, the attached image shows that when there is one or more clip-nested child, the parent object's fill is given transparency and, separately, the parent object's stroke is given transparency, and clip-nested children are unaffected.

This may be a bug, or maybe a deliberate (peculiar) design decision for the software, but I suspect Serif would describe it as "by design" which can be translated as "an unforeseen consequence of the design".

 

I just had a look at a basic example and no it appears adding Pixel Layers to Vector Layers with Transparency Gradients does not apply the Transparency Gradient to the Pixel Layer - doesn't seem right to me ?

If I want to add a Pixel Layer to a Vector Boundary without applying the Transparency Gradient to it that might be applied to this layer then logically I would just think to create a new blank Vector Layer and add it to that ?

I need to learn the different between Clipping and Masking too - I never use Masking because I just find it confusing - maybe I will find myself having to use it at some point to create more advanced effects though

Sorry I don't quite understand what this diagram is showing but I'm completely exhausted after walking 70 miles in 7 days and trying to finish off a design - I'll come back and have a look later 

 

[walt.farrell]

17 hours ago, awakenedbyowls said:

I just had a look at a basic example and no it appears adding Pixel Layers to Vector Layers with Transparency Gradients does not apply the Transparency Gradient to the Pixel Layer - doesn't seem right to me ?

If you truly use a Vector Layer (also known as a Layer (capital L)) which you get by using Layer > New Layer or the Add Layer button at the bottom of the Layers panel, it works as you want.

This works because a Vector Layer is a container, just as a Group is (which was also mentioned above).

Are you really using Vector Layers, or are you using something else, like Rectangles or other Shapes?

You still have never given us any screenshots or sample documents so we can really tell what you're doing.

[lepr]

31 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

If you truly use a Vector Layer (also known as a Layer (capital L)) which you get by using Layer > New Layer or the Add Layer button at the bottom of the Layers panel, it works as you want.

That's what led me to assume the OP was talking about nesting a Pixel object inside a vector object such as a Rectangle or a Curve. I don't understand their stubborn refusal to provide an example document or screenshot of the app. Maybe they will now.

 

[awakenedbyowls]

2 hours ago, lepr said:

That's what led me to assume the OP was talking about nesting a Pixel object inside a vector object such as a Rectangle or a Curve. I don't understand their stubborn refusal to provide an example document or screenshot of the app. Maybe they will now.

I'm not refusing it's just every single time I ask a question the first reply is always asking for a screenshot or video - when often this is not required - adding these takes time which I don't always have

So it works if I add a Vector Layer but if I draw a Vector Object the layer it forms isn't a Vector Layer ? What kind of layer is it then - it's either Vector or Pixel

If Vector Objects are just Objects then why are they also represented as Layers and function as layers ? It just seems logical to me that if I can apply effects to this layer and add sub layers then the effects would work on the sub layers !

[R C-R]

7 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

I'm not refusing it's just every single time I ask a question the first reply is always asking for a screenshot or video - when often this is not required - adding these takes time which I don't always have

Consider how much time you have already spent posting in & reading replies in this topic vs. how long it would take to attach a screenshot, video, or just an Affinity file. We ask for such things because there usually are many possible reason for something not working as expected, so it usually saves everyone a lot of time if we have something more than just descriptions to work with.

For instance, with an example file we could easily what kind of layer you are adding/creating.

[Old Bruce]

22 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

... apply effects to this layer and add sub layers then the effects would work on the sub layers !

On 7/28/2023 at 6:54 PM, awakenedbyowls said:

What is the difference between making the pixel layer into a one child parent group or adding it to a vector layer ?

On 7/28/2023 at 5:41 PM, awakenedbyowls said:

No there's no masking involved - just a standard hierarchy of layering without anything else added 

On 7/28/2023 at 4:39 PM, awakenedbyowls said:

Add previously made Pixel Layer to Vector Layer so it is now the Parent Layer

These statements are not clear to me at all. I have no idea at all what you are trying to achieve.

[awakenedbyowls]

31 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Consider how much time you have already spent posting in & reading replies in this topic vs. how long it would take to attach a screenshot, video, or just an Affinity file. We ask for such things because there usually are many possible reason for something not working as expected, so it usually saves everyone a lot of time if we have something more than just descriptions to work with.

For instance, with an example file we could easily what kind of layer you are adding/creating.

When people ask me for videos and screenshots it's often from something I'm working on that I don't wish to put out on the internet yet - until it's finished - so it takes me time to sort something out when often I'm in the middle of something and it's late and I'm tired or whatever - I figured that just explaining in words would have been sufficient in this instance !

I just thought that someone on here who knows the ins and outs of the software might have figured that I was actually adding the pixel layer to an object and not an actual official vector layer and maybe asked that initially ? or maybe if the software was designed in such a way that makes sense then I suppose then nobody would have wasted any time here

If I create a simple vector OBJECT or layer as I like to call them since that's also what they are and apply a BASIC transparency to it and then add a pixel layer to it - it applies the transparency also to the Pixel Layer - If I apply a Gaussian Blur to the Vector Object and add the Pixel Layer it also affects the Pixel Layer - Transparency Gradient though - Nope ! That effect does not apply down through the hierarchy

So apparently Vector Objects work like Vector Layers apart from when Transparency Gradients applied - I think this is a Design Oversight

 

[awakenedbyowls]

5 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

These statements are not clear to me at all. I have no idea at all what you are trying to achieve.

Yet here I am having just figured out what the problem is using plain English

I'll work on a series of memes for the grammatically challenged next time maybe then

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

So apparently Vector Objects work like Vector Layers apart from when Transparency Gradients applied

Are you talking about the container type of layer identified with a Capital "L" in the Layers panel or something else?

Also, while it may be clear to you what you mean when you use words like "basic" or "standard," it is often not clear to others, which is why you often get requests for clarifications, screenshots, example files, etc.

[awakenedbyowls]

1 minute ago, R C-R said:

Are you talking about the container type of layer identified with a Capital "L" in the Layers panel or something else?

Also, while it may be clear to you what you mean when you use words like "basic" or "standard," it is often not clear to others, which is why you often get requests for clarifications, screenshots, example files, etc.

What sort of functions are simple vector objects operating when I add pixel layers to them and the effects applied to the vector object also apply to the pixel layer then ? Is the pixel layer not contained within the parent vector object/layer then?

Some effects work on the child layers where others don't ? an oversight in design that has caused a great deal of confusion

I don't know what capital L has to do with it apart from when I add a new Layer it's called Layer 1 with a capital L - I only see some symbol next to Vector Object layers