<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Cyrille Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cberger@cberger.net" target="_blank">cberger@cberger.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Sven Langkamp wrote:<br>
</div><div>> I think it makes no sense to not do it that way because Photoshop does it.<br>
> I think that the grayscale version has some advantages over the current<br>
> solution, e.g. gradients work better. Both version have their problem. I'm<br>
> open for suggestions, but I think there is no ideal solution.<br>
</div>The biggest problem of the current approach is that it is not easy to draw<br>
transparency. But it is a general problem that we have with normal painting<br>
too.<br>
<br>
Take a "blank" artist that has not being distorted by photoshop use, and ask<br>
him what is opaque or what is transparent, black or white, white or black ?<br>
Which is my main issue with grayscale mask, it does not make any sense to use<br>
a color to map transparency.<br>
<br>
For the gradient, I can only suggest a convert to alpha option. Currently it<br>
should use the alpha part of a gradient (I wanted to test if that was working<br>
but for some reasons masks seems totally broken on my old trunk checkout).<br>
<div><div></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Even the Krita behaviour isn't very logical. Why do I have to erase on the transparency mask to hide some area?<br><br>Transparency is needed to indicate that a certain piece of the mask shouldn't be affected. For example if you have a mask and I want the top less selected, the middle unchanged and the bottom more select, then I could control the changed area with the alpha channel while the other "color" channel would control the direction (more or less selected) of the change. <br>
</div></div>