> On Wednesday 24 September 2008 11:03:43 David Gowers wrote:
> This is because it violates the normal behaviour of alpha, which is
> a specifier of opacity for a particular color; without a color, an
> alpha value is meaningless.
Like black color is a max.dark blue (or red, or even white) it is
similar to totally transparent color -- it is black/white/red/etc
with opacity reduced to 0%.
> Also, the 'semitransparent color' usage and the 'erasing' usage are
> directly contradictory. Semitransparent color could work in a
> fairly normal way, erasing would have to replace the underlying
> pixel values rather than blending them.
Why? Look -- transparent color is a way to produce an image. You can
do this already (produce an image). So the effect is the same, the
way differs. And now, you would like to erase part of the image --
why now existence of transparent color makes a difference? The images
in both cases are the same.
The problem I see now is the layers -- i.e. to keep the current
workflow, yet to being able to use transparent colors with them in
So there is obstacle, indeed. And till now I have no idea how to solve
Gimp-developer mailing list