Topic awaiting preservation: transparency without opacity ? (Page 1 of 1)

hi alll guys,
I'm "editing" a template and there are some I don't understand how they made:



2: they use opacity to see backgroun
1: they use ? to see background ?
please tell me how to do like they did at 1, thanks.

That's a tad hard to guess at without seeing the PSD file layers.

Generally, #2 layer would be set to Screen mode, while #1 layer would be set to Multiply mode.

However, since your example show the mode as Normal... my guess is that the dark image you "think" you're seeing "behind" that NavBar layer, is actually stacked "above" it in the layer palette -- which then means that that dark image layer would be set to Multiply, Overlay, or Softlight.

Dat's my story, and i'm stickin' to it!

It looks like they made a black bar, then made it semi-transparent... then at some point combined it with some other layer which at that point made the semi-transparent pixels merge with the 100%/normal blend layer while still retaining their transparency. One of the more counter-intuitive things dealing with layers, IMO.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

I gotta go with theGuest's theory that the funky shape thing is actually the layer that is semi-transparent and overlaying the other layers.

:::11oh1:::

I don't buy that theory for a couple reasons.

1. I've seen what I described all too often, and it is usually more plausible then putting a background over a foreground object, most people don't think/work that way.

2. The layer order that we can see seems to be structured background > object > text and not the other way.

3. The border that goes around the top section is going 100% opaque to semi-transparent at the same time as the black fill, as it goes towards left. You wouldn't likely be seeing pure white if the green background was dropped on top of it.

4. Most designers I've watched work, and most tutorials I've read work in the same logic. Create something, create something else, merge the two. If you create a semi transparent object, and then merge it with another one, you will get the result I described. Since this is a common workflow, it makes the most sense to me (see point 1).

There is another option that I would consider more plausible than the green being on top also. A mask, quickmask, or alpha channel (probably qm) was used to make the object semi-transparent. Simply draw the object in black, switch to qm, apply a gradient, switch to normal editing, hit delete. You will make things semi transparent. This would be more along the workflow of someone that had used PS for a long time and had done things more with deleting objects and applying to existing raster graphics rather than someone who was newer to photoshop and who's editing repoirtoire was more geared to real-time effects.

This is all just speculation on everyone's pat. OKtrust, how about providing some more details (especially to clear up some of the points of contention) or maybe post the PSD for us to look at. I'm sure anyone here can give you an answer in about 17 seconds if they had the PSD .


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

Yeah, I'm with MB on this one. That's one of the most frustrating things with PS, until you realize what it did... "What the... but I thought that layer's opacity was 50%?"

quote:

---

I'm sure anyone here can give you an answer in about 17 seconds if they had the PSD .

---

For MB, that 16 seconds would be spent opening the PSD..

[This message has been edited by Raptor (edited 11-11-2003).]

If PS has 'texture' as a blending mode, then thats your answer (a grey rectangle with white outline is all you need). Or an already merged layer mask. Its not that hard, damn.

__________________________________


Alevice's Media Library

ah here is my source download

Top one has a layer mask.

The other was made transparent since the beginning. That or its it just a merged layer mask.



__________________________________


Alevice's Media Library

AHH I think they use Gradient Tool with the same color but they use opacity here, don't they ?

HAHA I'M RIGHT!

quote:

---

BY MB: You wouldn't likely be seeing pure white if the green background was dropped on top of it.

---

I never meant that the entire bg, including the green page bg was overlayed Mb... i meant that that dark funky shaped image was overlayed... and i was right!

So let that be a lesson to yas! hehe j/k

[This message has been edited by theGuest (edited 11-12-2003).]

yes, I tested with Multiply and it is OK
but I still ... don't understand what's you mean in your last post :P

hey theGuest have you ever tried "save for web" that template ? and you will see a strange thing
it auto slice our tamplate, what's the way they do huh theGuest ?

Ah, misunderstood what you meant theGuest.

I couldn't get the files to open kept telling me it had errors. Tried on two computers *shrug*. Have to take your word on it this time.. ooo you so dodged a bullet from my mad skillz. hahah.. uh. yeah.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

Not sure what's up with that OKtrust... i didn't look at that when i opened the file. And i don't have it anymore, and your link to it is dead now also... so... sorry.

Basically put though... if you have any slices in your doc, and you use the "Save for Web" function, and save both html & images... then ya, you'll get PS "auto-slicing" your image for ya. As far as i know, PS 6/7 can't slice along guides, so there would have to be slices already created for this to happen when saving the file out.

here is update www.nhanhoacenter.com/nhanhoa.rar
please hurry to download, about 2-3 days I will delete it because here is not my hosting !

hahaha hey i missed your post Mb... so true... i move like the wind to dodge mad skillz bullets... uh.. yeah...

OKtrust that document has been sliced to pieces. Open the VIEW menu, then SHOW, then SLICES.

That's why it get's sliced when saving.