Nomenclature: "Layer" or "layer"?

[R C-R]

It bothers me more than it probably should that the term "layer" can refer to a generic layer of any type or to the specific container type identified by the "(Layer)" suffix in the Layers panel. Consequently, when I post something where I think it is important to make it obvious I am referring to the container, I don't know the best way to do that. Writing something like "(Layer) layer" seems silly & capitalizing the container reference & not the generic one probably won't make the distinction obvious to most readers.

 

So ... anybody got a suggestion for the best way to do that?

[MikeW]

My only suggestion...is to stop calling "objects = layers" altogether.

 

I think that was a mistake of Serif's. And it would have been made all the more clear if say AD just began a new document with a Layer and all objects created were on that layer unless someone discretely made a new layer(s) for other objects.

[lepr]

.

[dutchshader]

It is more like a masterlayer and a objectlayer

[MikeW]

Well, I think objects = objects and layers = layers. No master this or that required.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, MikeW said:

Well, I think objects = objects and layers = layers.

Except that in Affinity at least one kind of layer, the "(Curves)" layer, can consist of more than one object. Plus, while I have no trouble visualizing masks as objects, the same is not true for adjustment layers. "(Image)" layers are treated as indivisible objects while "(Pixel)" ones are not.

 

So I don't think it can be reduced to just objects & container Layers & be any less confusing.

[MikeW]

20 minutes ago, R C-R said:

So I don't think it can be reduced to just objects & container Layers & be any less confusing.

 

While I sometimes dislike this rebuttal, it works here...the concept I espoused is used in every other vector design software I use.

 

Right now there is confusion over objects = layers. Hence your post. I think that Serif's chosen nomenclature is at fault. I don't think this series of posts and those that actually profess confusion would exist if it were layers = layers and objects = objects. What those objects are is not the issue. It's the terms.

[R C-R]

19 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Right now there is confusion over objects = layers. Hence your post.

Actually, my post was inspired by the confusion over the different kinds of layers in Affinity, as well as in many other apps that simply don't call some kinds of layers by that name. See for example Adobe's https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/layer-basics.html page, where among things it says "Sometimes layers don’t contain any apparent content. For example, an adjustment layer holds color or tonal adjustments that affect the layers below it." It also refers to a Smart Object as "a special type of layer."

[MikeW]

I still see zero confusion with the Adobe et al usage of the term, layer. And to use a screen capture of an image application, I think it is pretty clear to me what is a layer...

 

Now, if I were to expand those two layers at the top, what would be seen are nested adjustment layers. Those layers could well be positioned as separated layers instead of being nested but I chose to nest them simply for tidiness. If I expanded either or both of those layers, I could select one of the adjustment layers and physically move it just like one of the layers of the flag or stone and then it would only act upon the lower layers even though in themselves appear as empty layers.

 

I do read posts here where even Serif personnel at times seem confused over what term to use...

[toltec]

What about a Compound layer ?

[MikeW]

You mean what. Like this confusion? 

 

Select the compound object/layer...

 

Or...

 

Press and hold ⌥ (option/alt) while clicking on a boolean operation icon to create a compound (non-destructive boolean operation) so you can still access and edit the original shapes (clicking the small arrow in the compound layer in the Layers panel).

 

Seems to me they are just objects.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, MikeW said:

Seems to me they are just objects.

And yet you called them compound layers, just as you did for the adjustment layers & lower layers in your Adobe example.

 

In both the Adobe & Affinity apps these items appear in the Layers panel. Nobody calls it the "Object panel,' which would be the logical choice if some of them where just objects & not also layers.

 

They are all layers, whether identified as such or not.

[toltec]

1 hour ago, MikeW said:

Seems to me they are just objects.

Yes the second one.

 

They are object layers in the Layers panel. 

The same way adjustment layers are adjustment layers in the Layers panel.

etc etc

 

The common factor is "layer" therefore they are layers. Surely?

 

[MikeW]

R C-R, they are layers. They aren't objects on a layer. The flags are an object on a layer. The stone image is an object on a layer. More than one object could also be on those layers.

 

The adjustment layers, in PL, also contain an object, it's just that the object has properties just like the top flag does. It is movable just like the flags or stone images.

 

If I draw,a rectangle in AD, that is an object, not a layer. It too can be moved, resized, etc without affecting the container layer.

 

The reality is that everything I draw or import into AD is an object. That's true whether I am using AD in a "layerless state" or have made discreet layers and drawn objects on them or placed imported objects on them.

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, MikeW said:

The reality is that everything I draw or import into AD is an object. That's true whether I am using AD in a "layerless state" or have made discreet layers and drawn objects on them or placed imported objects on them.

The reality is that everything must be in a layer -- there is no "layerless state" for any object in a document to exist in; not in Affinity, not in Adobe, & not in any other app that uses a layer containment hierarchy as an organizational model. Whether they are identified as layers in the UI is immaterial; even for Adobe they are all referred to as layers in the documentation.

 

That is why I am asking specifically for suggestions about how to refer to Affinity's "(Layer)" type layers in the least confusing way possible. I am not interested in adding to the confusion by talking about "layerless" states, objects that are not contained by layers, or anything else that does not help with that.

[MikeW]

No, I don't agree that "everything must be in a layer."

 

When I start AD and begin a new document, there is no layer. When I create objects, one might say they are on the "background" (like opening a photo in PS and PS doesn't call it a layer either), but they are not on a layer like in, well, everything else. And in PS, if I create a new document, there is Layer 1 created automatically. A layer in AD also needs to be added/created (that is as a distinct thing from objects as layers). But not so in other vector drawing applications (which is more relevant than talking about PS). In AI, XDP, CD, CHE, ad infintum, there is a layer 1 with new documents and there are objects one draws or places on them.

 

So to circle back to the conversation you began and solicited feedback for, it is impossible in AD using Serif's nomenclature to truly distinguish objects from distinct layers that may contain objects. In Serif's nomenclature, a Layer simply contains child layers. Which only adds to the confusion in any logical sense when there are also child layers that are distinct from objects. Geesh, it's simply silliness that Serif felt the need to change the nomenclature of such things. Up is down and left is right and ...

 

So good luck on coming to any concrete consensus on what to call what.

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, MikeW said:

When I start AD and begin a new document, there is no layer. When I create objects, one might say they are on the "background" (like opening a photo in PS and PS doesn't call it a layer either), but they are not on a layer like in, well, everything else. And in PS, if I create a new document, there is Layer 1 created automatically.

1. You can say whatever you want but the fact remains that when you create objects they are placed on a layer.

2. By your own admission PS creates a Layer 1.

3. Please refer to the previously mentioned Adobe Layer Basics help page, where among other things it says "The Layers panel in Photoshop lists all layers, layer groups, and layer effects in an image." If it appears in the Layers panel, it is a layer, period. This includes "Background" layers, photo layers, adjustment layers, & so on.