Timeline for Forget alpha instead of blending it in Gimp
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2014 at 16:20 | history | edited | Paolo Gibellini | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 21 characters in body
|
| Nov 20, 2014 at 16:20 | comment | added | Paolo Gibellini | @jsbueno Perhaps it is my limitation, but in my opinion the question can be formulated in a more linear way. | |
| Nov 20, 2014 at 16:08 | comment | added | jsbueno | I don't think this question is unclear at all. | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 21:06 | comment | added | Paolo Gibellini | There are many ways to achieve the same result ;-) | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 17:12 | comment | added | Tomáš Zato | Ah, now I see what's unclear. The background wasn't hidden by eraser - it was other layer and to picture transparency, I decided to hide it in the other images. But otherwise I think my question was clear enough - maybe the thing I want is just something most people wouldn't use. But in some cases it's just better to get full color than blend the color with background. | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 15:39 | history | edited | Paolo Gibellini | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Nov 19, 2014 at 15:39 | comment | added | Paolo Gibellini | More than odd is unclear (I've corrected my answer). What you are proposing to obtain? You start from a blue cross done on a layer with alpha channel and white background; then you use the eraser tool to remove the background and to make some transparency on the cross; then you remove the alpha channel; and later you come out with the desired image. If you need to "render the original color as full color" in an image, you have to use a brush with the "full color". | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 15:02 | comment | added | Tomáš Zato | What's odd about my question? | |
| Nov 19, 2014 at 13:06 | history | answered | Paolo Gibellini | CC BY-SA 3.0 |