Layer opacity vs. fill

[Jowday]

@Smee Again is right. Quick demo using blend mode "color burn" on smartphone image at 100% (yuck):

 

Adobe Photoshop CC 2019:

Left: Colour burn rectangle with opacity 40%, fill 100%

Right: Colour burn rectangle with opacity 100%, fill 40%

Notice the difference between the two rectangles

Affinity Photo 1.7.2 desktop:

Left: Colour burn rectangle with opacity 40%, fill 100%

Right: Colour burn rectangle with opacity 100%, fill 40%

Notice there is no difference between the two rectangles

Edited August 19, 2019 by Jowday
Clarification

[Smee Again]

Better yet, four images, all using "Vivid Light" blend mode:

Image 1 - 20% opacity

Image 2  - 20% fill opacity

Image 3 - 50% opacity

Image 4 - 50% fill opacity

Do you see any difference between "opacity" and "fill opacity"?

[Smee Again]

9 minutes ago, Jowday said:

@Smee Again is right. Quick demo with smartphone image at 100% (yuck):

 

Adobe Photoshop CC 2019:

Left: Colour burn rectangle with opacity 40%, fill 100%

Right: Colour burn rectangle with opacity 100%, fill 40%

Notice the difference between the two rectangles

Affinity Photo 1.7.2 desktop:

Left: Colour burn rectangle with opacity 40%, fill 100%

Right: Colour burn rectangle with opacity 100%, fill 40%

Notice there is no difference between the two rectangles

Excellent. I was about to post my reply when you posted this.

It isn't going to make me angry if they don't add the ability, but it sure would make me happy to see it.

[markbowen]

2 hours ago, Wosven said:

Hi,

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

And can somebody please tell me why I've not seen that there before!! Good catch!

[Smee Again]

46 minutes ago, markbowen said:

And can somebody please tell me why I've not seen that there before!! Good catch!

It is just opacity . . . it isn't fill. Someone added an extraneous word to confuse others I guess. It doesn't affect fill.

[markbowen]

2 minutes ago, Smee Again said:

It is just opacity . . . it isn't fill. Someone added an extraneous word to confuse others I guess. It doesn't affect fill.

Seemed to here when I tried it although didn't try in all the ways that it has been used in the past. 

I painted on a layer then added some FX to the layer then lowered the fill to 0. The effects stayed applied but the painted part wasn't there so seems to be doing some right at least?

[markbowen]

29 minutes ago, Smee Again said:

It is just opacity . . . it isn't fill. Someone added an extraneous word to confuse others I guess. It doesn't affect fill.

Seems to work fine here. Is this not what you meant?

https://streamable.com/hre88

 

[Smee Again]

Look at Jpwday's example. There is a difference.

Look at my examples, all the same, no difference.

Watch the attached videos, BIG DIFFERENCE should exist.

[Smee Again]

3 hours ago, markbowen said:

Seems to work fine here. Is this not what you meant?

https://streamable.com/hre88

 

If I were talking about opacity as being a desirable addition, it would be.

Opacity is simply the alpha value and has nothing to do with the fill, just as saturation is different from vibrance. Saturation, like opacity, affects all color while vibrance affects muted colors more so than colors that are already saturated.

In your video, all you are seeing is variance in opacity --- PERIOD. There is absolutely no affect on the fill of the layer.

Earlier today I posted 4 images. The first two used 20% as "fill opacity" and "opacity". Can you honestly say you detect a difference between the images? Why not? Because while one was done with "fill opacity" from the FX slider, the other was done with "opacity" from the opacity slider. BTW, they are both nothing more than opacity sliders. Neither one affects fill.

The third and fourth images are like the first two, but instead of 20% I used 50% as "fill opacity" and "opacity". Again, can you honestly differentiate between the two images? Again, you can call an apple anything you wish to call it, but it is STILL AN APPLE.

The reason the images are identical is because "fill opacity" and "opacity" are using two different names for the exact same process. There is no "fill opacity", it's just plain opacity with "fill" added before the name.

[markbowen]

4 hours ago, Smee Again said:

If I were talking about opacity as being a desirable addition, it would be.

Opacity is simply the alpha value and has nothing to do with the fill, just as saturation is different from vibrance. Saturation, like opacity, affects all color while vibrance affects muted colors more so than colors that are already saturated.

In your video, all you are seeing is variance in opacity --- PERIOD. There is absolutely no affect on the fill of the layer.

Earlier today I posted 4 images. The first two used 20% as "fill opacity" and "opacity". Can you honestly say you detect a difference between the images? Why not? Because while one was done with "fill opacity" from the FX slider, the other was done with "opacity" from the opacity slider. BTW, they are both nothing more than opacity sliders. Neither one affects fill.

The third and fourth images are like the first two, but instead of 20% I used 50% as "fill opacity" and "opacity". Again, can you honestly differentiate between the two images? Again, you can call an apple anything you wish to call it, but it is STILL AN APPLE.

The reason the images are identical is because "fill opacity" and "opacity" are using two different names for the exact same process. There is no "fill opacity", it's just plain opacity with "fill" added before the name.

You are quite right, I apologise. I had misunderstood.

Would yes be nice to get a proper fill slider definitely.

Best wishes,

Mark

 

[Wosven]

16 hours ago, Smee Again said:

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".

Sorry, effectivelly, that's more visible with all the examples. There are various "fill" options in APhoto, but the result is the same each time.

Perhaps they'll work on this soon since they need to correct different points about transparency and other problems.

[Smee Again]

8 hours ago, Wosven said:

Sorry, effectivelly, that's more visible with all the examples. There are various "fill" options in APhoto, but the result is the same each time.

Perhaps they'll work on this soon since they need to correct different points about transparency and other problems.

Unlike Mr. Perot, I'm not being a flippant when I say, "I'm all ears".  I would really like to know. Will peruse the link you shared.

Please expand on your statement about the "various fill options" in Affinity Photo.

Thanks!

[Wosven]

There's different options or item we can fill with a color (objects, fill layers, effects), but each time it's the opacity we can modify. I should banish the term "fill" until it's resolved

 

 

[Smee Again]

Ah, I thought I had once again missed something. Thanks.

 

[Rondem]

On 7/27/2019 at 7:39 PM, Smee Again said:

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.

I see now why i could not recreate the same result in APhoto like this video. The Fill option like in PS is not available in APhoto.

[fde101]

On 8/19/2019 at 10:16 PM, Smee Again said:

"fill opacity" and "opacity" are using two different names for the exact same process

I suspect the "fill opacity" is a reference to being an opacity for the fill as opposed to the stroke.  The use of the term "fill" is kind of ambiguous here and if Serif does provide a feature which is the equivalent of the one being asked for I do hope they come up with a better name for it.

[mso1977]

I‘d say „Fill“ could be called „Pre-Opacity“, because it applies transparency before any layer effect as opposed to „Opacity“, which applies transparency after all layer effects. You could call that „Post-Opacity“. 

[Smee Again]

19 minutes ago, mso1977 said:

I‘d say „Fill“ could be called „Pre-Opacity“, because it applies transparency before any layer effect as opposed to „Opacity“, which applies transparency after all layer effects. You could call that „Post-Opacity“. 

Nope. "Fill" relates to the amount of color. "Opacity" relates to how opaque that color is --- when dealing with the 8 special blend modes noted earlier..

[0Kami]

There is a workaround for creating a "Fill" adjustment in any AP adjustment layer.

Because each AP adjustment layer has its own mask, just fill the mask with whatever percentage level of "fill" that you would like. Just remember to reverse the percentage amount. For example, if you wanted a 5% "Fill" then use the paint bucket and fill the mask with 95% black. If you want a very targeted fill amoung you can use sliders to adjust the fill percentage or work in 5% increments in the grey swatches panel.

I hope this helps.

[Smee Again]

Nice try, but these three images prove your idea is not the equal of "fill":

The first image is no fill on either side.

Second image has a purple fill on both sides. The left side has the opacity set at 15% while the mask on the right side filled with 15% black (i.e. Luminosity set at 15%).

Third image same as above except 40% opacity and luminosity set at 40%.

At no point is there a difference between opacity and mask.

[0Kami]

Smee Again, please see the images below.

Because many of the forum users were trying to replicate what they were seeing in YouTube tutorials, I was trying to respond with a workaround to the lack for the lack of a PhotoShop FILL slider in AP.

As an example, I attempted to reproduce the results from the PiXimperfect YouTube video technique shown in "Create Colorful Contrast with 2 Special Blend Modes!"

Using the PiXimperfect downloaded image and applying the Color Burn and Color Dodge Blend Modes with the mask "shading" FILL technique I was able to closely replicate the video's contrast effects.

The first image was the downloaded sample from PiXimperfect. The second is the image with an HSL adjustment layer with a Color Dodge Blend Mode. The third is the image with an HSL adjustment layer with a Color Burn Blend Mode. The fourth image shows the two adjustment layers with a 90% Black "Fill" on the Mask. The fifth image shows the two adjustment layers with the saturation sliders set at 100% and a 90% Black "Fill" on the Mask. (PiXimperfect used 9% and 7% fills respectively in Photoshop but I rounded up for this example.)

I think your example shows no effect because you used a Luminosity Blend Mode. 

Take care. 

[Smee Again]

Place a color adjustment layer above the image . . . perhaps a fill layer with a magenta fill. Then show me how you made it work.

What Blake Rudis (f64 Academy), Unmesh Dinda (PixImperfect), and others do is start with a fill layer or an empty layer flood filled with the desired color.

The idea of fill vs opacity isn't about adjustment layers, it's about color fill. The amount of color, not the opacity of color.

[Murfee]

Hi @0Kami, thanks for your suggestions, unfortunately they don't quite achieve the same results as the Photoshop fill method. I agree there is a bit more pop in your final image, the colour projection is not the same. Using a 90% fill in the mask is having a very similar effect to reducing the layer opacity. 

There is another method that is discussed in the thread below, this again is not exactly like the Photoshop method but gives a better result in the projection.

I have attached a file that shows the differences, top image is the original, the second down is using your method with the 90% mask fill, third down is lowering the layer opacity to 10% (this is the same principle as the 90% mask), the bottom is using the method in the thread from February. You can see the projection differs, particularly if you look at the vignette. I have used 100% saturation for each one to show the differences.

We still need a Layer Fill similar to Photoshop. The special 8 blend modes react differently when Opacity or Fill is adjusted. We really need the functionality of adjusting fill to unlock the power of the special 8.

 

[0Kami]

Murfee, thanks for the visuals, the explanation, and the link to the other thread. I appreciate any help and new workarounds I can find.

And, yes, I agree, we need the FILL slider in AP.

[Murfee]

Just a quick bump & reminder to the Devs, the latest improvements have been great but it would be really good to see the layer fill mode introduced soon to assist with creativity 😀