Opacity Filter slider value is back to front

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 months ago
I was using the Opacity Filter and, is it me, or is the slider action back to front?

Moving the slider to the right INcreases the value from 0 to 100 progressively, but DEcreases the degree of opacity.  The values need to reversed don't they?  100% Opacity should result in a white image  Instead you have to set the value to 0.
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1637 Posts
  • 1217 Reply Likes

Posted 2 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Quark Flux

Quark Flux

  • 15 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
The effects | opacity filter seems to work correctly for me.  Left: 0 = white, Right: 100 = visible.
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1637 Posts
  • 1217 Reply Likes
Perhaps it's me then but I would expect 0 opacity to = visible and vice versa, logically?  No?
Photo of Dubie

Dubie

  • 1432 Posts
  • 1152 Reply Likes
It's working right Paul.

100% opacity (default) means the contents of the layer are opaque. Visible.
0% opacity means the contents of the layer will be invisible because they are completely transparent.

Dubie:)
(Edited)
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 7003 Posts
  • 3827 Reply Likes
Dueling keyboards, well. I looked up the medical definition of opacity.
That slowed me down pretty good{:>)
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 7003 Posts
  • 3827 Reply Likes
You're just thinking backwards. 0% opacity means it has no opacity. You cannot normally see it. It's SnagIt's fault the canvas is white.If it were a png, it would show the checkerboard pattern indicating transparency.

o·pac·i·ty (ō-pas'i-tē), 1. A lack of transparency; an opaque or nontransparent area.

So therefore, 100% opacity is imagery you cannot see through. 

Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1637 Posts
  • 1217 Reply Likes
The crux of this issue seems to be whether it is the effect on the image or on the layer that causes what you see to be opaque


To a numpty like me, applying 100% Opacity to an image implies that the image becomes invisible

So to me, the effect above is completely illogical.

But then I think many terms in imagery are illogical.  Like a smaller f = a larger aperture and an unsharp mask is used to sharpen images
Photo of Dubie

Dubie

  • 1429 Posts
  • 1149 Reply Likes
LOL :)))

Ya forget the numbers logic.

If the slider does differently than what you want, go the other way.

That sounds like the best logic.
Photo of Dubie

Dubie

  • 1429 Posts
  • 1149 Reply Likes
Paul,

I think you answered it your self.
if I apply 100% opacity to an image of a bottle to make it opaque, it stays visible.


Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 6997 Posts
  • 3823 Reply Likes
You need to apply 0% opacity to your posts and think about it a while Paul. Just kidding {:>)
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 6997 Posts
  • 3823 Reply Likes
Or, you just saw my previous post 100%. Okay, It's time to make something to eat.
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1637 Posts
  • 1217 Reply Likes
One thing I learned in all of this is that, there've been a lot of complaints about how difficult it is to make fine adjustments using the slider and that there should be a set of up/down arrows next to the number box that you could increment/decrement.

Turns out there's no need because the keyboard cursor keys already do it. ^ and > increment by one and < and the down arrow decrement.
Photo of davidlambert

davidlambert

  • 176 Posts
  • 50 Reply Likes
Well, I've got to throw in my two bits worth. To me, 0% opacity means 100% transparent and vice versa. Therefore, if I select an area of an image and make it 0% opacity, I should still see the image behind, which I do. If I set the selection to 100% opacity, the image behind disappears. as I expect it to. I treat the selection tool as creating a mask that the property is applied to.