trouble with PNG's
» >
» Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
so I've been playing around with making Imageready to make some buttons for my site. They look well on a white background, but when I save them as PNG's and upload them to the site, they don't have transparency on the corners even though I save them with transparency. am I saving them in the right file type? or is it Imageready or something.
This is the site.
and this is an example button
/e
PNGs have an alpha channel, so that is a valid format. My guess is that you aren't actually USING alphas when you create it. I'm not familiar with Imageready, but I strongly suggest you use something better, such as GIMP or Paint.Net

If you want to stick with image ready, you don't make it with a white background, you make it with an empty background. There is no background while you are making it. Most programs represent this as a checkerboard. So if when you hit new image you get a white canvas, do a select all -> delete
There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses. (Bjarne Stroustrup)
I specifically set it to transparent when I created it, so it wasn't white it was checkerboard.
I would be using photoshop, but my dad didn't install it right.
/e
Eeems wrote:
I specifically set it to transparent when I created it, so it wasn't white it was checkerboard.
I would be using photoshop, but my dad didn't install it right.


Oh, wait, Adobe ImageReady. Yeah, don't use that for PNGs. It is for GIFs and web site layouts. It is also massive overkill for what you are doing. Just grab GIMP or Paint.NET
There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses. (Bjarne Stroustrup)
Kllrnohj wrote:
Eeems wrote:
I specifically set it to transparent when I created it, so it wasn't white it was checkerboard.
I would be using photoshop, but my dad didn't install it right.


Oh, wait, Adobe ImageReady. Yeah, don't use that for PNGs. It is for GIFs and web site layouts. It is also massive overkill for what you are doing. Just grab GIMP or Paint.NET
Seconded for the GIMP suggestion, since I don't have Paint.NET experience. You'll find GIMP much more intuitive (cue the Nikky-hate).
fireworks ftw. I'll try and fix em for ya eeems.
TI smote the Beta Testers for their insolence and rested. SynThesIs 14
He doesn't have to wake up, you know. I have a laser, and we have a garbage disposal. - Pintsize

What does the GUI say about his fill level? IT'S OVER 9000!!!
Will_W wrote:
fireworks ftw. I'll try and fix em for ya eeems.


It would be far easier (and likely better looking) if he just did it properly. Then you don't have to worry about partial transparent parts creating a halo Wink
There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses. (Bjarne Stroustrup)
I use Paint.NET for most of my graphics work, since it's much easier to work with individual pixels there. I don't really do any photochopping, just creating original geometric content.
タリ ·· Ask questions the smart way ·· digipres.club
I can't install anything on my computer, my dad has me locked out on that, so I have to use what I got. Though I might be able to convince my dad to install it.
@Will: thanks, that would be helpful.
@Kerm: Nikky does have strong opinions about certain things doesn't he
/e
use Portable GIMP from PortableApps.com. It doesn't need to be installed.
<- Please Support on Lego Ideas
thanks I'll do that
EDIT: it crashed on me before it even started, any other ideas?
/e
Eeems wrote:
thanks I'll do that
EDIT: it crashed on me before it even started, any other ideas?


try starting it again? I use it all the time.
<- Please Support on Lego Ideas
Use GIMP if you're a retarded 4 year old who doesn't care about a GUI worth crap or any sort of quality.

That being said, if GIMP is overkill for your project, then Photoshop is super duper overkill.
allynfolksjr wrote:
Use GIMP if you're a retarded 4 year old who doesn't care about a GUI worth crap or any sort of quality.

That being said, if GIMP is overkill for your project, then Photoshop is super duper overkill.
Have you tried 2.6, Captain Critical? Of course not, why bother when you can just base your criticisms on the first alpha version?
KermMartian wrote:
Have you tried 2.6, Captain Critical? Of course not, why bother when you can just base your criticisms on the first alpha version?


GIMP's GUI is pretty bad - I'm going to agree with ally on this one. Multiple window interfaces are a huge annoyance, and a PIA to work with. Docked windows or MDI are far superior for this type of application -- too bad GTK doesn't properly support either AFIK.
There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses. (Bjarne Stroustrup)
Kllrnohj wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
Have you tried 2.6, Captain Critical? Of course not, why bother when you can just base your criticisms on the first alpha version?


GIMP's GUI is pretty bad - I'm going to agree with ally on this one. Multiple window interfaces are a huge annoyance, and a PIA to work with. Docked windows or MDI are far superior for this type of application -- too bad GTK doesn't properly support either AFIK.


it supports docking + tabs, not for the image windows, but for all the tools, etc. I've always found the GIMP to be conveniently layed out though, and to be honest, can't stand using photoshop. maybe you just aren't used to use an operating system that manages window and application switching properly. Not that you should have to switch anymore than you would for editing multiple images in photoshop though.
<- Please Support on Lego Ideas
elfprince13 wrote:
it supports docking + tabs, not for the image windows, but for all the tools, etc.


Which is still annoying. That is still at least 2 windows (often more with multiple images opened)

Quote:
I've always found the GIMP to be conveniently layed out though, and to be honest, can't stand using photoshop. maybe you just aren't used to use an operating system that manages window and application switching properly. Not that you should have to switch anymore than you would for editing multiple images in photoshop though.


I've used GIMP on many platforms, from XP to Vista to Windows 7, Fluxbox to GNOME to KDE to xmonad, and even once on OS X. It has sucked on ALL of them. There is a difference between "an OS managing window and application switching properly" and "terrible UI design", please don't confuse the two Rolling Eyes

Forcing the user to differentiate between several floating windows on top of a busy background (such as that of a web page or IDE) is simply bad design - there is no way for an OS to do that "properly" in a way that doesn't suck. And, of course, there is also the issue of the lack of a physical grouping. The functionality of the program is scattered across multiple windows, which is bad design. Then again, you like OS X, and it also has bad UI design, so I'm not all that surprised that you overlook crimes against UI.
There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses. (Bjarne Stroustrup)
Kllrnohj wrote:

Which is still annoying. That is still at least 2 windows (often more )

only when they infringe on something elses space, and your OS is too stupid to know the difference between an open window, and your entire application, hence the reason for the hack that is MDI.

Quote:
Forcing the user to differentiate between several floating windows on top of a busy background (such as that of a web page or IDE) is simply bad design - there is no way for an OS to do that "properly" in a way that doesn't suck.



GNOME can do the first at least, and compiz-fusion has effects for the second, though not as smoothly. Its much better when you can just flick your fingers to make it happen too. Granted, GIMP is an X11 app, so its not exactly a poster child for playing nicely with OS X, but multiwindow layout is certainly no crime.

Quote:
And, of course, there is also the issue of the lack of a physical grouping. The functionality of the program is scattered across multiple windows, which is bad design.

you can group them however you want. this is significantly less cluttered:

than this:


Quote:
Then again, you like OS X, and it also has bad UI design, so I'm not all that surprised that you overlook crimes against UI.

and which would those be? being able to click a single icon to bring the whole application to the front? Having a single unified l&f for the whole operating system, something that windows hasn't managed yet? (OS X didn't used to be real great on this front, but at least since 10.4 it's been pretty good) Or don't you like not having to waste screen real estate on menus that are the same between 8 windows? Maybe its being able to drag and drop between any open window, or the desktop, on the computer, regardless of the virtual desktop its on, or what's covering it up that really bothers you?
<- Please Support on Lego Ideas
elfprince13 wrote:
only when they infringe on something elses space, and your OS is too stupid to know the difference between an open window, and your entire application, hence the reason for the hack that is MDI.


You keep ignoring what I am actually saying. Stop that, its annoying (and just makes you look like a dick)

Quote:


GNOME can do the first at least, and compiz-fusion has effects for the second, though not as smoothly. Its much better when you can just flick your fingers to make it happen too. Granted, GIMP is an X11 app, so its not exactly a poster child for playing nicely with OS X, but multiwindow layout is certainly no crime.


Good job providing examples to counter what I said - oh wait, no you didn't, you ignored what I said, made something up in your head, and then provided examples for that Rolling Eyes

Quote:
you can group them however you want. this is significantly less cluttered:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3456/3313485518_96105aca33_b.jpg


Actually, that would be *NOT* grouped. Again, good job not countering the point. Putting separate windows really close together is just a hack to mimic docking windows and MDI. It also requires me to do that manually - screw that.

Quote:
http://www.mediachance.com/realdraw/photoshop.jpg


Your argument is that a new version of GIMP looks better than Photoshop from 1997 running on a resolution of what appears to be 640x480? Wow, impeccable logic there Rolling Eyes

How about you compare it to a modern version of Photoshop



Of course, multiple windows also fails when I want to resize. Maximize, take up half the screen, etc...

Quote:
and which would those be? being able to click a single icon to bring the whole application to the front? Having a single unified l&f for the whole operating system, something that windows hasn't managed yet? (OS X didn't used to be real great on this front, but at least since 10.4 it's been pretty good) Or don't you like not having to waste screen real estate on menus that are the same between 8 windows? Maybe its being able to drag and drop between any open window, or the desktop, on the computer, regardless of the virtual desktop its on, or what's covering it up that really bothers you?


Window menu bars at the top of the screen == fail.
Dragging a CD to the trash to eject it == Epic Fail.
Closing a window not closing the app == fail.

To name a few.

But wow, I am SOO impressed that OS X supports drag 'n drop! Seriously? Like, I didn't know that anything could do that!!! Oh wait, we've had that for, what, 10 years now? Give or take? Dragging/dropping to a virtual desktop has absolutely nothing to do with it being OS X, but nice attempt at making a program feature be an OS X feature - I guess you ran out of OS X not-features Rolling Eyes Really, of all that you listed only ONE of those is truly "exclusive" to OS X, and that would be window menu bars at the top of the screen rather than on the window - which is a failure, not a feature.
There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses. (Bjarne Stroustrup)
This isn't the appropriate topic but, being a fan and supporter of Mac, I just have to say something:
Kllrnohj wrote:

Window menu bars at the top of the screen == fail.
Dragging a CD to the trash to eject it == Epic Fail.
...

To name a few.
I left out the third "fail" point because I know why it fails - doesn't end the process. Can you explain why those fail, and why the "window menu bars at the top of the screen rather than on the window" are "a failure," and "not a feature" please.

For one, I think the windows at the top of the screen is handy, centralizes the whole OS.


The CD/External Drive to trash can is nifty, unlike Windows where you gointo 'My Computer' and click eject or, you can right clicking some puny a icon and select "safely remove hardware" for thumb/external drives. Whereas on a Mac each drive & CD is mounted to the desktop and you can easily remove/eject it by dragging it to the trash can or you can also right click the drive or CD and select eject.


There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
trouble with PNG's
» Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Page 1 of 3
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement