<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Cyrille Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cberger@cberger.net">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 class="im">On Wednesday 19 May 2010, Sven Langkamp wrote:<br>
> Even the Krita behaviour isn't very logical. Why do I have to erase on the<br>
> transparency mask to hide some area?<br>
</div>Well I mentioned that the ability to paint transparency would be a nice<br>
feature, didn't I ? As for logic, well without a mask you use the eraser to<br>
hide some area, so that means masks would work the same way as normal layer.<br><div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br>You erase on the mask, so the erase should make a hole into the mask where the layer shines through.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
> Transparency is needed to indicate that a certain piece of the mask<br>
> shouldn't be affected. For example if you have a mask and I want the top<br>
> less selected, the middle unchanged and the bottom more select, then I<br>
> could control the changed area with the alpha channel while the other<br>
> "color" channel would control the direction (more or less selected) of the<br>
> change.<br>
</div>I don't understand what you mean. You want a two channels masks ?<br></blockquote><div><br>No, the result is still one channel but the gradient would have two channels. <br></div></div>