On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 03:22:41PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 02:48:57PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 02:21:18PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > I ended up with two images based on my mask, one with all black in
> > > overexposed areas, one with all black in underexposed areas.
> > >
> > adding a mask should only give you transparency or not transparent
> It is confusing to me as to *what* is transparent though, as the actual
> image is not modified until until I paste in my black/white mask (at least
> the way I used it, and I thought you explained it).
well, i did not say anthing about layer mode. my idea of what you might
have done is very confused by the introduction of this word into the
description of what you did.
> > > I copied one to a new layer in the other, and selected "addition" as the
> > > layer mode.
> > >
> > a layer mode is not a layer mask. the mask is an easy way to have
> > transparency. the mode mixes the pixels of two layers mathematically.
> So, is the best way to combine these images to use layers?
it might be a good time to put the image online.
after the mask introduces the transparency to one layer, the mode can be
used to change how the remaining pixels interact with the layer below
it. transparency occurs to one layer. you can see the layer below, but
it is visual only. mode involves two layers. it is much more
complicated to explain and the introduction of it here makes the
discussion almost uselessly complicated.
> > > I have to clean up the mask edges (they are blurred already but need more
> > > changes) and/or etc.
> > >
> > the levels tool has been useful to me for making blurry images less
> > blurred.
> The image is sharp, I mean I used the gaussian blur to avoid hard edges on
> my mask.
so are you saying that you successfully cleaned up the mask images or
that you still need to?
Gimp-user mailing list