PhotoLine Forum

Workflow bug?

I have two bitmap layers. My intention is to apply the same adjustment to both layers. I create one adjustment layer, and drag it on the first layer.
Then I create a virtual copy of the adjustment layer, and try to drag it on top of the other bitmap layer.

Result: Photoline does not allow me to drag that virtual copy on top of the second bitmap layer. I would expect the virtual copy to behave exactly as the original adjustment layer.

I tried to force matters by turning the virtual layer into a clipping layer first, and then drag it on top of the second bitmap layer, and turn off the clipping. That works, and the virtual copy is parented to the second bitmap layer - but it will affect the entire document, not just the bitmap layer I parented it to.

It would be great if virtual clones of adjustment layers would behave like the originals.

Die Einstellung "Graupunkt" geht bei nicht angedocktem Weißpunkt-Dialog nicht mehr verloren - danke!

Wenn Ihr jetzt noch das Beschneiden-Werkzeug mit den Pfeiltasten frei positionierbar macht (unabhängig vom Bildrand), bin ich mehr als glücklich

Beste Grüße, Christoph

Bug regarding the 3d-shadow layer effect.

When the Color is set to a gradient, and the shadow is dragged below to create a back-lit shadow effect, a linear gradient cannot be used to affect the shadow's colour vertically. Only one colour is shown then.

Herbert123 hat geschrieben:Bug regarding the 3d-shadow layer effect.

When the Color is set to a gradient, and the shadow is dragged below to create a back-lit shadow effect, a linear gradient cannot be used to affect the shadow's colour vertically. Only one colour is shown then.

Hm, guess that's because the gradient is limited to the border of the image...

Herbert123 hat geschrieben:Having to copy pixels first into a new layer, and then transform and move them, and again merging back into the layer beneath it just takes so much time ...

Not really.

Here's a tip: edit the Keyboard Layout in the program's settings and assign "Shift+M" to the "Merge Down" menu item. Then it's simply a matter of hitting "Ctrl+C", "Ctrl+V", moving your pixels and hitting "Shift+M". That doesn't slow down anyone....

Herbert123 hat geschrieben:Bug regarding the 3d-shadow layer effect.

When the Color is set to a gradient, and the shadow is dragged below to create a back-lit shadow effect, a linear gradient cannot be used to affect the shadow's colour vertically. Only one colour is shown then.

Yes, that happens here, too, when the gradient is selected directly from the color picker window in the layer style dialog.

However, it will work if you double-click on the colour swatch in the layer style dialog to open the mini- Color Editor. The gradient you specify in that little editor will "take" for the 3-D Shadow layer effect.

It definitely is inconsistent behaviour.

Eurgail hat geschrieben:Hm, guess that's because the gradient is limited to the border of the image...

Yes, the gradient seems to be located where the original layer is. If you create a gradient outside (by setting the vertical endpoint to 200% manually), you can also create a gradient in the shadow. See the attached sample file.

However, it would be nicer if the gradient filled just the shadow (and gets distorted accordingly when one changes the shadow size).

Cheers

Burkhard.

P.S. Seems that the forum software doesn't allow pld attachments any more, I had to zip up the sample file.

photoken hat geschrieben:

Herbert123 hat geschrieben:Having to copy pixels first into a new layer, and then transform and move them, and again merging back into the layer beneath it just takes so much time ...

Not really.

Here's a tip: edit the Keyboard Layout in the program's settings and assign "Shift+M" to the "Merge Down" menu item. Then it's simply a matter of hitting "Ctrl+C", "Ctrl+V", moving your pixels and hitting "Shift+M". That doesn't slow down anyone....

Yes, it does. It does when I have to make tenths of adjustments on a pixel level to many frames of sprites. Or making many direct adjustments to interface elements.

Here is the difference:
1) make a selection
2) transform pixels and/or move them.
3) drop selection, done.

or:
1) make a selection
2) ctrl X
3) ctrl V
4) transform.
5) merge down. ctrl M, done

I am making many small adjustments to sprites currently. Let's suppose around 200 changes during an afternoon. That means an additional 400 keystrokes which are unnecessary in other image editors (even very simple ones). Of course, I could record an action which combines the cut and paste actions. Still 200 additional keystrokes over a direct pixel manipulation option for the lasso tools.

The point I am trying to put forward here is that the current workflow is far less direct and responsive for these type of pixel level adjustments. For large scale work, of course, it does not matter. I think anyone who works with pixel graphics would understand the difference, and how important it is fro them. If you are not doing this type of work, then the extra keystrokes won't matter that much. But for pixel/game graphic artists and GUI designers they do - very much so. Just imagine having to turn any pixel you wish to manipulate first into a layer. It completely breaks the flow.

I know it is a seemingly little thing. But let's spin this around, and talk about how filters are applied to selections in Photoline:

1) make a selection.
2) apply filter
3) drop selection (or move it to another section to repeat).
Done.

Efficient, isn't it?

Or:
1) make a selection
2) ctrl X
3) ctrl V
4) apply filter
5) merge down ctrl M
done, or yet another extra step:
6) reload selection if you want to repeat for another section

Would you think the second method is an improvement over the direct method described in the first method (which is the one we have now)? I think a change to the second method would frustrate almost every Photoline user!

Well, that is exactly how it feels to anyone who needs to manipulate images on a pixel level in Photoline. Yes, it is 'only' one or two or three more actions on the part of the user - but it really does break the flow of the artist. As would forcing PL users to first create a separate layer to apply a filter to just that area.

The thing is that for pixel level adjustments a DIRECT manipulation mode works best most of the time. For large-scale adjustments I completely agree with you that the indirect method generally works better (but not always!).

I think Photoline ought to accommodate both workflows.

When the 3-D Shadow effect has a blur applied to the shadow, the blurring occurs across the entire shadow and kind of ruins the 3-D effect: In that example, the shadow's blur seems to be narrow along the red line and wide away from the red line. For a realistic 3-D effect, the blur should be sharp nearer the object and progressively more blurred the farther away from the object -- as shown by the green line.

Here's the sample PLD:

photoken hat geschrieben:When the 3-D Shadow effect has a blur applied to the shadow, the blurring occurs across the entire shadow and kind of ruins the 3-D effect:

In that example, the shadow's blur seems to be narrow along the red line and wide away from the red line. For a realistic 3-D effect, the blur should be sharp nearer the object and progressively more blurred the farther away from the object -- as shown by the green line.

Here's the sample PLD:

Here is how I solve that issue. I create a virtual copy of the content, and then apply the shadow effect on the virtual layer, hide the content, and move it below the original. I then apply a soften and motion blur, which I control with a layer mask. It also allows me to adjust (rotate) the shadow for feet which may not run parallel to each-other. And move it around for more easy grounding.

Quick example (not my artwork) :
http://estructor.altervista.org/pl/shadowtest.pld

Herbert123 hat geschrieben: Here is how I solve that issue. ...

That will work.

Another way is to duplicate the content, move the duplicate below the original, then change the duplicate's content to a shadow colour and apply the appropriate distortions.

Or create a lasso from the original content and (on a new layer) fill the lasso with the shadow colour before distorting it.

There are many ways to skin this cat, but I thought I might as well mention the simpler (for the user ) method of having a more realistic 3-D Shadow layer effect....

Added:
This is probably related to the fix for an earlier problem with the 3-D Shadow layer effect:
http://www.pl32.com/forum3/viewtopic.ph ... dow#p35793

Herbert123 hat geschrieben:...when I have to make tenths of adjustments on a pixel level to many frames of sprites.

Isn't that the real point of the matter? When you're doing specialized tasks, it's always best to use a specialized tool.

Whether the specialized task is animation, or 3D rendering, or CAD drawing, etc., there are programs for that. I can appreciate wanting PL to do every conceivable thing, but one does need to be realistic about a general-purpose raster/vector program....

chrischa hat geschrieben:Wenn Ihr jetzt noch das Beschneiden-Werkzeug mit den Pfeiltasten frei positionierbar macht (unabhängig vom Bildrand), bin ich mehr als glücklich

Wenn da niemand ein Problem damit hat, kann ich das schon ändern.

Fände ich auch gut. Wüsste spontan auch nicht, was dagegen spricht.

beiti hat geschrieben:Wenn ich mich nicht sehr täusche, ist mit dieser Beta das hier entdeckte Schwarz-Konvertierungs-Problem in PDF X 1a schon behoben.

Ja, das sollte in dieser Version gehen.

Martin