Layer opacity vs. fill

[mso1977]

Hello.

I've been using Photo for quite a while now on iPad and have just purchased the Mac version.

So far a great app, but there is one major (at least for me) feature missing – the fill slider for layers, like in Photoshop.
I use fill far more often than opacity in Photoshop, because the way blend modes and effects interact with the background better suits my editing style and requirements.

Here's an example of the different ways blending is handled when using fill vs. opacity:

 

I don't seem to be able to replicate that effect or behavior in Affinity Photo by any means.

Please implement this functionality in Photo for both Desktop and iPad.

Thank you!
Michael

 

[walt.farrell]

Not having Photoshop I'm not sure if this will provide the same function, but can you add a Fill layer on top of your background and adjust it?

Layer > New Fill Layer is one way to do that.

[mso1977]

Thank you Walt. This does seem to have a similar effect, but I haven't really grasped the functionality of fill layers yet.

I guess I will have to read the manual, which I usually never do. Photo is really a great app, especially on the iPad, but after using Photoshop for about 20 years there are quite a few differences with handling things that makes working with Photo sometimes frustrating. Especially masks.

[walt.farrell]

I would probably start with a brief bit of experimentation: create the fill later, pick the color you want, then adjust its opacity and blend mode in the Layers panel.

[hifred]

Walt, is there also a (equally simple) way to make the layer content transparent, while retaining its layer effects? Shown here.

[walt.farrell]

24 minutes ago, hifred said:

Walt, is there also a (equally simple) way to make the layer content transparent, while retaining its layer effects? Shown here.

I'm not an expert, and someone else may have some better thoughts on this. But I think you might achieve something similar by playing with the following:

1. The Fill Layer has two ways you can adjust opacity. First, in the Layers panel. But for your purposes, you can also adjust the opacity of the fill color itself. (Screenshot below.)
2. If you have a shape such as shown in that video, you can nest the fill layer within the shape layer by dragging it in the Layer panel. That will apply the fill only to the shape.

[hifred]

That's quite interesting, thank you! I tried duplicating this effect - but the difference to Photoshop seems to be the shadow handling. In Photoshop there's no interior shadow.
Something else – do you know how to improve the screen display of Vector shapes in Photo? They look terribly jaggy here...

[walt.farrell]

You're welcome.

The jaggedness may just be a screen rendering artifact that wouldn't affect the actual image when exported or printed. It's hard for me to say without actually having the file. You might check your Preferences, Performance settings and see what you have specified for View Quality.

If you're on Windows that's probably all that would be relevant, but if you're on Mac there might be additional settings I wouldn't know about.

[hifred]

45 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

The jaggedness may just be a screen rendering artifact that wouldn't affect the actual image when exported or printed.

Yes sure. But I don't like if things look bad on screen either :o)
I'm just no more used to see stairstepping unless having set the view to explicitly turn off antialiasing (for pixel precise work on icons and such). I thought that I had accidently turned that mode on somehow – but now I'm afraid, that's the default rendering quality. Not at all good, unfortunately – it's all set to max, Win10.

[hifred]

I think I have found out a bit more: Vector objects in Aphoto only look decent when rendered at 100% – as if they were pixel-objects. The same heart shape in Designer is drawn sharp, regardless of display magnification – the way I would expect. For whatever reason Serif seems to use another Vector rendering mechanism in Photo.

[walt.farrell]

I think the same mechanisms are used in both.

I suppose there might be some rasterization occurring due to the use of fill or transparency, but again, without having the file to look at I can't say any more about that.

[hifred]

No need to share a file, really. I see bad aliasing on any roundish vector shape, as soon as I draw it on the canvas. Both in the release version and the Beta. Designer looks fine.

[mso1977]

7 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

I would probably start with a brief bit of experimentation: create the fill later, pick the color you want, then adjust its opacity and blend mode in the Layers panel.

Although you can achieve a similar effect in some cases, fill layers in Photo are something else entirely than layer fill in Photoshop. 

Another question, is there a way to make level adjustments on masks? I often use it to sharpen masks that are too blurry. 

[lepr]

.

[mso1977]

On 11/23/2018 at 7:58 PM, >|< said:

 

You can get close to the Photoshop result by blending at 100% opacity and decreasing the lightness of the blending colour. I've attached the Affinity file in addition to the screenshot below.

blendmodes.afphoto

Thank you >|<

A bit of a workaround, but it seems to work.

[swilson]

Try Layer Effects (fx), you can change Fill here.

Have a look at this video.

 

[Ztrby]

There is also the thing with the special 8 blend modes. Some blend modes are useless workout fill. 

[Smee Again]

Wouldn't the fill option here work the same as with fill on the paint brush --- as in similar coding to achieve the effect?

Really unclear as to why this was not an option in photo. While it's true, opacity can help, there are occasions where when considering fill vs opacity --- fill is the only acceptable solution as there are differences in behavior.

Piximperfect (2017) explains some of the difference here:

Better info beginning at about 1:30 in on the following video:

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Smee Again
Added linked video and removed some text.

[Smee Again]

One more example . . . because fill and opacity behave differently with the special blend modes (like linear light, used in this example) this is a great example for portrait photographers as to why a "fill" option would be a nice addition. This video was released this morning.

This option is especially beneficial when using a solid color adjustment layer with the soft light, hard light, dissolve, vivid light, linear light, pin light, and hard mix blend modes.

[fde101]

On 11/22/2018 at 4:09 PM, hifred said:

I see bad aliasing on any roundish vector shape, as soon as I draw it on the canvas.

I've seen this as well and I believe it is intentional.

Photo is optimized for working on raster images in which there is typically a "background" pixel layer.  As the output format of such a document will generally be a raster image as well, I suspect the vector objects are being rendered to match the underlying resolution of the document as this is a truer reflection of the state of what is hypothetically a raster document.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, fde101 said:

I've seen this as well and I believe it is intentional.

Photo is optimized for working on raster images in which there is typically a "background" pixel layer.  As the output format of such a document will generally be a raster image as well, I suspect the vector objects are being rendered to match the underlying resolution of the document as this is a truer reflection of the state of what is hypothetically a raster document.

I believe it is also the case that Photo always displays a pixel-based image, not a vector-based image. In Designer you have View > View Mode > Pixels or Vector, and a Split Mode option. Photo does not provide those options. It can generate a purely vector output, but cannot display it in vector mode like Designer.

[markbowen]

Definitely second (or however many now) this request. Some sorts of effects are really difficult to achieve (or take a lot more steps) without having this slider.

[Smee Again]

On 7/10/2019 at 6:13 PM, swilson said:

Try Layer Effects (fx), you can change Fill here.

Have a look at this video.

 

Not available to the unwashed masses who do not use apple products. This layer FX is not available in windows. Evan if it were, not really sure if this is the same thing. You are working on vectors, we are talking about PIXEL images like photographs.

[Wosven]

3 hours ago, Smee Again said:

This layer FX is not available in windows.

Hi,

Are you sure? Isn't the fill option this one?

[Smee Again]

Pretty sure you are missing the point. "Fill" and "Opacity" are different animals that's why it's confusing when the name of the check box is "Fill opacity".

That is strictly the opacity. Take a look at this video I posted earlier. It will show you the difference when you are dealing with just one the "special blend modes". You can't achieve this with Affinity Photo at this time: