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

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

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

Please keep in mind that when referring to technical matters "plain English" frequently can have several different interpretations or meanings, which is why to avoid confusion & misunderstandings, it is a good idea to use the same terminology that the app uses wherever possible. So for example, plain English words like group, layer, object, & many other terms may have more than one meaning depending on context.

[awakenedbyowls]

1 minute ago, R C-R said:

Please keep in mind that when referring to technical matters "plain English" frequently can have several different interpretations or meanings, which is why to avoid confusion & misunderstandings, it is a good idea to use the same terminology that the app uses wherever possible. So for example, plain English words like group, layer, object, & many other terms may have more than one meaning depending on context.

I get that and I always try to use the right terms

[walt.farrell]

2 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

What sort of functions are simple vector objects operating when I add pixel layers to them

Shapes (e.g. Rectangles) are vector objects, but they are not Containers. Artboards, Layers (Capital L, identified in the Layers panel as Layer or with the Layer icon in V2), and Groups are Containers.

A Shape cannot "contain" a Pixel layer the same way a Container can. It can Mask the Pixel layer, or it can Clip the Pixel layer, but those are different from "containing" it in the sense that Containers can.

[awakenedbyowls]

13 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Shapes (e.g. Rectangles) are vector objects, but they are not Containers. Artboards, Layers (Capital L, identified in the Layers panel as Layer or with the Layer icon in V2), and Groups are Containers.

A Shape cannot "contain" a Pixel layer the same way a Container can. It can Mask the Pixel layer, or it can Clip the Pixel layer, but those are different from "containing" it in the sense that Containers can.

Why the selective application of Effects that are applied to the Shape to the subsequent Pixel Layers underneath then? Why do some apply down and some not? 

Consistency is always useful when using complex software applications

[R C-R]

6 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

Why the selective application of Effects that are applied to the Shape to the subsequent Pixel Layers underneath then?

What specifically do you mean by "underneath"? Nested, not nested, clipped, or maybe something else?

(This is exactly the sort of thing that a screenshot or example file can make 100% clear!!!!)

[walt.farrell]

52 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

I get that and I always try to use the right terms

But even though you try, terminology may be imprecise (e.g. what do you mean in this case by Vector Layer), or you may use it incorrectly.

A picture would have taken you about three minutes, or less, to prepare, and could have saved several days of discussion.

[Old Bruce]

On 7/28/2023 at 4:06 PM, awakenedbyowls said:

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 ?

 

33 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

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

Are you using the Transparency tool on a Shape (rectangle)? Or are you using a Gradient with one or more of the stops set to 0% opacity? And are you wondering why that transparency doesn't carry over to the Pixel layer? In either case the transparency is affecting the fill of the Shape.

Here is a screenshot of something that took me about 10 minutes to knock together. I have no idea if it demonstrates what you actually want to achieve.

And here is the file.

Untitled.afdesign

[awakenedbyowls]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

What specifically do you mean by "underneath"? Nested, not nested, clipped, or maybe something else?

(This is exactly the sort of thing that a screenshot or example file can make 100% clear!!!!)

Whatever happens when I drag the pixel layer into the vector layer or object layer - that kind of underneath

The issue here appears to be inconsistency in how effects from the parent layer affect the child layer underneath

[awakenedbyowls]

53 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

But even though you try, terminology may be imprecise (e.g. what do you mean in this case by Vector Layer), or you may use it incorrectly.

A picture would have taken you about three minutes, or less, to prepare, and could have saved several days of discussion.

What do Affinity mean by Vector Layer ?

If I create an object the software creates a layer contain vectors so what is that if it isn't a vector layer ? 

It would also have been easier if people could just communicate with language rather that constantly complaining about not having pictures - ie. just ask me for more details maybe - if you don't want to help because there's no screenshot or video then don't help

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

Whatever happens when I drag the pixel layer into the vector layer or object layer - that kind of underneath

There are two different places you can drag the layer to so your "whatever" in no way makes it clear which one you are doing.

If you will just post a screenshot of this part of the Layers panel with the parent layer fully expanded, this would tell us what you mean, but you still stubbornly refuse to do even that, so I think I am not going to waste any more of my time with thrying to help you with this. Life is too short for that.

[walt.farrell]

15 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

Whatever happens when I drag the pixel layer into the vector layer or object layer - that kind of underneath

That depends on exactly where you drag it to, as @R C-R mentioned, and what you're dragging it onto/into. 

11 minutes ago, awakenedbyowls said:

What do Affinity mean by Vector Layer ?

With the capital letters as you used, that would usually mean a Layer layer (capital L, small "el"), as created by Layer > New Layer or the button at the bottom off the Layers panel in Designer/Publisher, and as shown by the label Layer in the Layers panel, and in V2 by the Vector Layer icon in front of the layer thumbnail.

There are other vector objects (shapes, curves, etc.) that are also commonly known as layers (small "el") and which appear in the Layers panel. 

And there are the container objects I mentioned before. 

And Image layers, and Filter layers, and Adjustment layers. 

And Pixel layers.

And Embedded isy Linked Document layers.

And maybe some I've missed.

And all of these have their unique capabilities and methods of use and of operation, so it is important to be very clear what is being discussed.

And pictures help printed that charity.

 

 

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, awakenedbyowls said:

It would also have been easier if people could just communicate with language rather that constantly complaining about not having pictures - ie. just ask me for more details maybe - if you don't want to help because there's no screenshot or video then don't help

It would have been easiest if you'd just taken the three minutes and created the screenshot we asked for.l there days ago.

Us asking for more details can be time-consuming, and can continue the confusion when someone isn't using or understanding terms in the same way, and even more so if it turns out multiple languages are involved.

And here's something I've learned from a career spanning 33 years of software development and User Support, and Help Desk kinds of activities, and 10 years or so helping people less formally via forums and email. When someone doesn't understand what's going on, and the experts (who understand thing better, usually) are trying to help, and say they need more information, it's good to trust them and provide it.

That will usually lead to a faster, more complete, and more reliable answer.

Edit: This approach of trusting the experts when they have requested additional information has also been exceedingly important when I have needed help, over those 40+ years of computer usage. So I don't just say this as one offering help, but also as one who has needed it on many occasions, too.

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by walt.farrell
Added a clarification

[StuartRc]

I come back from the 'Paint Festival' and my notification are full of responses to this thread.. Wow!😀

I had a look into the original question raised by @awakenedbyowls over the weekend and largely believe that I stand by my original comment. There simply are issues with workflow that do not adhere to the way Affinity apps comply fully. 
1. Don't believe that the approach of adding a transparent gradient to a shall we say Layer and subsequently dragging objects inside will function. It is obvious really in that you are attempting to apply a tool (transparency or gradient) to something that does not exist because a layer is just a container. If it is empty then there is nothing to apply the gradient to.

As discussed earlier layers groups etc are containers not vector objects as @walt.farrell in his usual effective and precise responses has pointed out. The same functionality applies in Blender where a shape object is just a container but the mesh holds the content data. I actually tried it. So what is implied by the question does not explain the result; only the reasoning of an idea. Oddly though If you apply a gradient colour to a pixel layer that is or contains an object i.e is not just a blank layer a gradient is applied but the px object disappears (this I could see as a potential bug in that you should not really be able to do it!).

2. @walt.farrell is absolutely correct when describing the differences between objects and other representative items. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the really useful ability to be able to drag vector objects inside a raster object and add colour to the parent this way

3. If you process workflow in a logical fashion i.e adding raster images into a layer then apply a gradient or transparency effect.. then it works exactly as you would expect. This apples to whether you use FX or tools. I still cannot see any real issue here with the app (bug) it is just the method being attempted is flawed

4. Even though AD is incredibly flexible and offers some brilliants px Vector integrations  there are sometimes limits. This is probably just one of them. Personally I would not attempt to set up workflow this way. It is an interesting idea (pre-styling a layer) but you can't as it stands at the moment! 
 

[R C-R]

8 minutes ago, StuartRc said:

Oddly though If you apply a gradient colour to a pixel layer that is or contains an object i.e is not just a blank layer a gradient is applied but the px object disappears (this I could see as a potential bug in that you should not really be able to do it!).

What kind of object other than a collection of pixels could a Pixel layer contain? Pixel layers are not container layers, at least not in the same sense as groups, or capital L Layers that can contain more than one kind of layer object, right?

So, since a pixel layer can contain only a collection of pixels, why does it seem wrong that applying a pixel color gradient to it replaces whatever pixels were in it to begin with?

[StuartRc]

11 minutes ago, R C-R said:

What kind of object other than a collection of pixels could a Pixel layer contain? Pixel layers are not container layers, at least not in the same sense as groups, or capital L Layers that can contain more than one kind of layer object, right?

So, since a pixel layer can contain only a collection of pixels, why does it seem wrong that applying a pixel color gradient to it replaces whatever pixels were in it to begin with?

Ah! you are correct... but you can have a blank px layer and a pixel object. Into which you can add a vector. I have used this quite a bit!...but I only found it by accident! Hope it's not a bug!😀

[R C-R]

28 minutes ago, StuartRc said:

but you can have a blank px layer and a pixel object. Into which you can add a vector.

Can you post an example of this -- I am not sure what you mean by "add," like if you mean nested as a child, clipped or what.

[StuartRc]

6 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Can you post an example of this -- I am not sure what you mean by "add," like if you mean nested as a child, clipped or what.

I did somewhere on the Forum...I will go find it...but it is just simply that if you have a px object like a raster drawing you can drag a vector inside.

Here is an AD file

 

vector in raster.zip

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, StuartRc said:

I did somewhere on the Forum...I will go find it...but it is just simply that if you have a px object like a raster drawing you can drag a vector inside

"Inside" as in dropping it onto the thumbnail of the Pixel layer or dropping it onto the right of that thumbnail ... or something else?

[StuartRc]

1 minute ago, R C-R said:

"Inside" as in dropping it onto the thumbnail of the Pixel layer or dropping it onto the right of that thumbnail ... or something else?

as in file above

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, StuartRc said:

as in file above

??? I mentioned 2 different places it could be dropped, so which one is it, or is it something elae?

[StuartRc]

Drop a vector over the text for raster | px layer OR use paste inside!

[R C-R]

7 minutes ago, StuartRc said:

Drop a vector over the text for raster | px layer

So you are just talking about the vector object being clipped by the pixel layer? Isn't that the way it is supposed to work & always has?

Am I missing something here?