Intoxicate

AAAAAND after months and months and months of figuratively banging my head against the wall, I finally realized that the issue was ALPHA MASK RENDERING. Once I un-checked those boxes in my graphics preferences, everything looked perfectly fine! SOLVED! (just wanted to post an update just in case anyone else ever encounters this issue)

So contesting a definitely -false- assertion classifies as 'arguing'? I wasn't aware that I needed to be so extremely delicate when someone is telling me what -I- did, as if I was a complete idiot who was unaware of my own actions. Someone made a declaration that was definitely not true, and I simply stated such. If that means I'm arguing then that's just a very sad state of communication, where people can't disagree without it being called an argument. The screenies I provided are all I have to work with. There are no multiple layers to be seen which is why I didn't bother trying to capture that area of my photoshop screen. Additionally, I wanted to show -both- images at 100% size and since the images were large, there really wouldn't have been room to see the layers section. If you noticed in the photoshop screenshot, you can see the file size of the image and can clearly ascertain that the image would obviously be large in size. But regarless of all of this, it appears that coming to the forums for help is nearly pointless if simply disagreeing with someone makes me 'argumentative'. I appreciate your input. thank you.

Cerise Sorbet wrote: You did use that filter on the whole image, it shows in your result. The Windows image viewer doesn't display alphas correctly, so it's not great to see what you really have. With all due respect, I know exactly what I did. I didn't use the filter on the entire image. If I did then there would be severe discoloration of the entire image, which is why I only use the filter on the exact areas I need.

Cerise Sorbet wrote: I thought you might have been using something like that. The problem with that color to alpha filter is that it operates on the whole image. Even a partial color match in the foreground will become partially transparent (looks like the jacket originally had a sort of criss cross pattern). If you really like that filter, you'll just have to vary your background colors with each clothing item, to make sure you have something that really isn't present in the materials. To save this image, you will want to use a different selection method on the original screen shot. I don't use it on the entire image, only the parts that have lots of whispy parts, like hair. I've tried about half a dozen other methods to get this done, this is what works best for me. and like i said, i've not had any problems with it until tonight. Either way, the background removal process isn't the problem, because as you can see in the posted image, the image only appears with those gridlines when it's opened in PS. when i've just viewing it in MS photo viewer, there are no gridlines at all. Possibly a transparency issue?

Also, the image on the left is the image on my computer after i've already removed the background from it in gimp. the second image has no background either.

Janelle Darkstone wrote: I'm curious why you're using Gimp at all when you have Photoshop? Removing backgrounds is easy in PS. Yes, since you remove the background, photoshop will have the checkered background to indicate the former background is now a transparent part of the image. And, like Kenbro said, just drop your own background behind the dress layer and you're set. One easy way to remove a green screen from an image is to use the eyedropper to make the green the foreground color, then Select > Color Range and mess with the controls until you get a nice, crisp border, then maybe Select > Modify > Expand one pixel and hit Delete. Quick and easy. One thing; if this is the method you're using in Gimp with a white background, the reason your right side image is fading is because the selection process is taking away a bit of the whiteness from the dress as well(!). That's one reason to use the nasty green color of a greenscreen. A quick and dirty fix for that would be to duplicate the dress layer and add it to itself to get some of the color back. Hope this makes sense... it's almost 3 am here and I should have been asleep hours ago. Gimp has a function called 'color to alpha' that allows me to specify a color and then make that color completely transparent, that way I don't have to fuss with color range in photoshop. It's 10x faster for me in gimp, and the image comes out MUCH cleaner that it would have had I done it in photoshop. Photoshop simply doesn't have a function that's comparable to that in gimp. I've been doing this for a while and I've not had a single problem with my method until tonight.

So.... it's a transparency issue? How do I fix it? D: I used gimp to get rid of the solid background (simply because it's easier for me that way) and I do all the rest of my post-processing in photoshop, this is the first time anything like this has happened D:

thank you :)

NatalieSeymour wrote: Who said anything about hair? LMAO It's a figure of speech. You know what those are, right? 1. splitting hairs • To argue about an inconsequential and trivial aspect of an issue. • To argue about whether details that are not important are exactly correct. • To argue about very small differences or unimportant details Seriously, wow. . . LOL And with that, I'm officially done sacrificing neurons on this exchange. Any further posts not pertaining to the actual subject matter will be ignored.

More than a week since this was posted and not a single response.

NatalieSeymour wrote: I don't know why you started your post with "for all you clothing CREATORS". Your question was clearly in regards to a clothing TEMPLATE. And splitting hairs is VERY helpful.

Drongle McMahon wrote: Ah. I'll rephrase the question and offer an answer to that. If the rephrasing is wrong, then I am sorry... Q: There are two mesh templates I must choose between. One has beautiful geometry, but the UV mapping is such that it is impossible to apply the sort of texture I want without unacceptable distortion. The other has less pleasing geometry, but its UV map allows texturing with much less distortion. Which should I use? A: Use the second one. Texturing usually has much more effect than geometry on the overall quality of appearance. ETA - Whoops! See, I guess we can be relied on to disagree about anything :matte-motes-wink: Q = precisely. A = Thank you for your input! I've found myself torn, so outside opinions are very helpful.

Ok... use the one that distorts but use less detail... got it. Thank you, that was very helpful

Since it's mesh, I'm obviously using a texture that I've made using the UV map that came with it. The question is pretty straight-forward: Do you use the mesh even though it distorts the texture you've made, or do you move on to a different mesh that does not distort, even though the shape of the mesh is inferior. This was all in the 1st post.

Ok.... No one has actually answered the question that I actually asked, but I appreciate you all for responding.

So here's a question for all you clothing creators... If you came across a clothing mesh that was -shaped- beautifully, but you find that it distorts your texture (making it harder to use): Would you stick it out and use it anyway, or would you rather use another [similar] mesh that's much easier to texture, even though the shape is inferior?

I honestly don't give a damn about how others perceive me. I'm not shopping to suit other people's taste, I'm shopping to suit my -own- tastes. I don't buy slutty tango clothing, not because of how I'd be perceived, but because I simply DON'T LIKE THE CLOTHING. They don't suit my taste, therefore I don't wear them. I like classy clothing. I also like my tangos. So why shouldn't I be able to wear both at the same time? That's all I'm saying - nothing more, nothing less.

I don't really have the time or patience to hand-texture appliers for countless outfits that I didn't make, hence why I seek out clothes that already have them. Thanks for the suggestion though

No one? Really??

I just noticed that the images for several of my marketplace products have suddenly disappeared. There wasn't even a default image displayed. But what's weird is that the slots that they were in are still there. Thankfully I had the images uploaded on blog/flickr, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to replace them. 1: Is anyone else experiencing this? 2: What caused this?

I just noticed that the images for several of my marketplace products have suddenly disappeared. There wasn't even a default image displayed. But what's weird is that the slots that they were in are still there. Thankfully I had the images uploaded on blog/flickr, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to replace them. 1: Is anyone else experiencing this? 2: What caused this?

. . . . . I don't even know what this thread is anymore. >.> *leaves cookies*

o.m.g.... I'm gonna get this RIGHT NOW, thank you so much! *crosses fingers*

Ello, it's the friendly neighborhood semi-noob again >.> Would any of you awesome people know how I can control my avatar's eye movement and direction, or if there is a HUD I can buy that controls eye movement/direction? I already know that there's an option to change the range at which the avatar's head follows my mouse but I find that to be of absolutely no help when it comes to photography. So... any ideas?

Ello, it's the friendly neighborhood semi-noob again >.> Would any of you awesome people know how I can control my avatar's eye movement and direction, or if there is a HUD I can buy that controls eye movement/direction? I already know that there's an option to change the range at which the avatar's head follows my mouse but I find that to be of absolutely no help when it comes to photography. So... any ideas?