Layer Blend: why no additive blending?

Ask a Question related to Macromedia Fireworks, Design and Development.

  1. #1

    Default Layer Blend: why no additive blending?

    I was slightly taken aback when I realized that Fireworks MX does not have an "additive" layer blend feature. It has "multiply" and variations thereof, "lighten" and "darken", but no "add" or "average".

    So, what do I want? An additive blend feature! It shouldn't be that hard! In fact, I've been over to Macromedia Exchange and took a quick look around -- but I didn't find any additive or average blending techniques.

    Am I the only person who is missing an additive blend? Photoshop has it!

    P.S. yes, I tried a work-around...

    Yes, I know, Fireworks does have a difference blend -- and one could (theoretically) do an additive blend using difference blends. The key is this equation:
    A + B = -(-A - B)

    that means if you set up layers this way:
    "layer A" (normal)
    "invert layer" (invert)
    "layer B" (difference)
    "invert layer" (invert)

    then you should end up getting A + B, right?

    WRONG! I use the process above and it didn't work. My two original images were gradient sweeps between green, black, and gray (the preset Emerald). My result looked mostly ok, but had some RED! Ok, so I admit it looked cool, but it wasn't mathematically correct. That's no good.

    The culprit? I assume the problem comes from the "difference" blend! "The color with less brightness is subtracted from the color with more brightness." This is the problem. Mathematical subtraction can sometimes give you negative numbers, but Fireworks Difference Blending guarantees "positive" numbers -- because all legal colors must be positive!


    AnotherBoringNickname webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  2. Similar Questions and Discussions

    1. ADDITIVE BLENDING
      I have read about ADDITIVE BLENDING at noisecrime. It looks beautiful. But the aren`t giving explicit tutorials, does anybody know a site or...
    2. Layer blend modes
      Using 2004Pro, am I overlooking something, or is there no way to use blend modes (multiply, screen,... like in Photoshop and most other graphic...
    3. Alpha blending
      This bit me last night; don't let it bite you. When preparing images for compositing, pre-multiply r, g, and b with alpha. There are two means...
    4. PE2: Selecting and painting a layer having a Hidden Power Tools' layer mask?
      I am making a collage using PE2. I have a background layer (solid color) and then each photo is on its own layer with a layer mask used from the...
  3. #2

    Default Re: Layer Blend: why no additive blending?



    "AnotherBoringNickname" [email]webforumsuser@macromedia.com[/email] wrote:
    > I was slightly taken aback when I realized that Fireworks MX does not
    > have an "additive" layer blend feature. It has "multiply" and
    > variations thereof, "lighten" and "darken", but no "add" or
    > "average".
    There is probably another way to arrive at the result you want in
    Fireworks. You just have to know how. How we can't say, because we don't
    know what you want the end result to look like.


    Linda Rathgeber
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Design Aid: 10-Palette Pack for Fireworks & Flash
    [url]http://www.webdevbiz.com/graphics.cfm[/url]
    Playing with Fire | [url]http://www.playingwithfire.com[/url]
    Victoriana | Theme Pack 03 - Club | [url]http://www.projectseven.com[/url]
    Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | [url]www.macromedia.com/go/team[/url]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Linda Rathgeber Guest

  4. #3

    Default Re: Layer Blend: why no additive blending?

    Have you really never seen an additive blend? I'll bet you have but maybe didn't realize it. What does this look like? See [url]http://www.pegtop.net/delphi/blendmodes/[/url]

    Notice that Photoshop has many more blends than fireworks. I don't expect to have ALL of them -- but the most simple (ADDITIVE) definitely should make the cut!

    ---

    Mathematically speaking I want this:
    NewLayer = PreviousLayers+CurrentLayer
    (for each pixel)

    even better would be an "weighting function":
    NewLayer = (PreviousLayers + CurrentLayer)*k

    ---

    If you want more info on how light-based color is additive (R+G+B=White and "no light"=black), see [url]http://www.pixelart.es/pdf/ARTICULOS/Colour%20Blending.pdf[/url]

    This is different from pigment-based color, where the primary colors are different (R,Y,B) and their combination yields Black. No pigment = white.

    This makes me wonder... is there any image-editing software that allows you to operate in "pigment-based color" mode, where you can mix colors like you would on canvas?


    AnotherBoringNickname webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  5. #4

    Default Re: Layer Blend: why no additive blending?



    "AnotherBoringNickname" [email]webforumsuser@macromedia.com[/email] wrote:
    > I don't expect to have ALL of them -- but the most simple (ADDITIVE)
    > definitely should make the cut!
    Here's the URL of the Macromedia Software Feature Request form.


    Linda Rathgeber
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Design Aid: 10-Palette Pack for Fireworks & Flash
    [url]http://www.webdevbiz.com/graphics.cfm[/url]
    Playing with Fire | [url]http://www.playingwithfire.com[/url]
    Victoriana | Theme Pack 03 - Club | [url]http://www.projectseven.com[/url]
    Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | [url]www.macromedia.com/go/team[/url]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Linda Rathgeber Guest

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139