Is there a way to turn off the checkerboard background???

[Cor'e =)]

Is there an option or way to change it to a solid color or something else?

[Zwicky]

The checkerboard pattern represents transparency, which can be any colour depending on where the image is displayed. Why would you want it to be a solid colour? Just add a layer underneath and use the Paint Bucket with the colour you desire, which is a much more straightforward solution.

[aguba]

I don't understand why there would be any problem with the checkerboard.

You understand that it simply represents transparency, and that when you save the image, the areas filled with checkerboard will be completely transparent (i.e. there's nothing there), yes?

[Cor'e =)]

We just do not want the checker board visible at times, we would find it extremely useful to toggle it off or replace it with one of our own design. We have needs in our work flow that would be serviced greatly by any feature that would allow us to mod the display of that default checkerboard. Whether it be off/on, solid, colored, or of a certain design.

[Zieon Eslador]

Create a new layer, fill-bucket it to the color you wish and then move it down a layer.

Cor'e =), once again. This is the only way you're going to do what you're asking for. Draw up your design and press Ctrl + C, it isn't hard. I can copy and paste a background onto the bottom layer in about 0.5 seconds. I don't see any reason for your complaints.

[Rick Brewster]

We just do not want the checker board visible at times, we would find it extremely useful to toggle it off or replace it with one of our own design. We have needs in our work flow that would be serviced greatly by any feature that would allow us to mod the display of that default checkerboard. Whether it be off/on, solid, colored, or of a certain design.

Ok so add a layer at the bottom of the image, fill it with the design/color you'd rather have. The visibility checkbox for that layer is exactly the checkbox you're looking for.

[Cor'e =)]

Another layer is not what we want, we do not want it part of the file and we do not want to load it as a layer every time and move it to the bottom of some 100 layers, it might get saved in the file and sent out. Plus, since we have many sizes of multi-layer images, we'd have to fiddle with canvas resize and centering etc., or perfectly pick the BG we want, that's a problem that software should solve, not humans. That's too much extra work to do, and to keep adding a layer and taking it out every time we show the image. If it was something we could select or turn on/off etc. then we'd have what we want. A checkerboard is just arbitrary anyhow and whatever design considerations it historically comes from is not written on a stone tablet, for us it'd be useful to be able to mod that BG.

[Rick Brewster]

Software is solving it. Checkerboard means transparency. If you don't want transparency, then you'll want the bottom layer anyway. If the checkerboard weren't there then you'd inadvertently send out files that had transparency when you didn't want to, or that were transparent in ways you did not like. I can't accept that this would be "too much work" -- all you have to do is select the bottom-most layer you already have, duplicate it, move it down 1 slot, and then fill it with white. Then check/uncheck its visibility as necessary and just save it in the .PDN file. No matter what, you are going to have a "transparency bug hazard", whether a checkerboard is there or whether the app lies to you and just fills in with white.

[Cor'e =)]

Your missing the point, the checkerboard is just the way someone decided to graphically display transparency in PDN, however, we want to graphically display it another way, meaning we want to customize that checkerboard in the PDN source code or plug-in, not remove it by adding a layer. Software should remove repetitive work cycles, i'm not saying for you to do this, we could, or someone else could. But, first i wanted to ask if it was already available, since it seemed plausible to us that it was an option.

Our desired scenario is to take instant (but not by prolonged layer manipulations meaning "extra work") screenshots without the checkerboard. And what we wanted as a transparency BG would NEVER EVER be (that would be extremely forbidden) put in the work or file itself, so it's best to be in the application itself, if only the PDN WE use.

[Rick Brewster]

Well, the checkerboard isn't customizable, either by configuration or plugin. The source code is not available. So ... I guess that answers your question.

You're right that the checkerboard is arbitrary. However, it is also convention. All other imaging software uses a checkerboard to indicate transparency.

[Zieon Eslador]

Your missing the point, the checkerboard is just the way someone decided to graphically display transparency in PDN, however, we want to graphically display it another way, meaning we want to customize that checkerboard in the PDN source code or plug-in, not remove it by adding a layer. Software should remove repetitive work cycles, i'm not saying for you to do this, we could, or someone else could. But, first i wanted to ask if it was already available, since it seemed plausible to us that it was an option.

Our desired scenario is to take instant (but not by prolonged layer manipulations meaning "extra work") screenshots without the checkerboard. And what we wanted as a transparency BG would NEVER EVER be (that would be extremely forbidden) put in the work or file itself, so it's best to be in the application itself, if only the PDN WE use.

*Subtle Edit-

I think you're missing the point everyone has been trying to get at. Rick gave you some advice in the post before yours, and I think that's the only possible way to get what you're wanting without adding more coding. From what info you've given us, there doesn't seem to be any difference in what you're asking for and what everyone has been telling you.

I wasn't exaggerating when I said it takes half a second to paste a bottom layer. There is no "extra work." :wink: (Smiley's are subtle, right?)

[Rick Brewster]

... Actually, why would screenshots even have transparent regions? :?:

You keep saying that you "have needs in your workflow" but haven't given any explanation as to what these are. You've jumped to the conclusion* that the checkerboard is what needs to be configured. Without any more information, there's no way we can provide any other recommendations or guidance. As far as we know, Paint.NET is simply not cut out for what you need to do.

* it may indeed be the correct conclusion, but we have no way of determining that ourselves

[Rick Brewster]

I think it's you who is missing the point. Reread the advice Rick gave you before that post. I mean read it this time and stop thinking "No, I'm right, whatever advice you give must be wrong." What you're asking for is exactly what everyone has been telling you.

I wasn't exaggerating when I said it takes half a second to paste a bottom layer. There is no "extra work."

Calm down man ... :shock:

[Cor'e =)]

I do feel we have been answered on this. You may if you will consider it a way to always display our proprietary "watermark" BG in the transparent areas for in-house work that may leave the premises, verses everyone's conventional checkerboard, call it an IP security feature.

[Zieon Eslador]

Calm down man ... :shock:

My typing looks much more serious than I am. Should I try again more subtlety?

*Done.

[Rick Brewster]

That sounds like something which should be solved by an actual security or rights management system, e.g. Office, SharePoint, NTFS, etc. Paint.NET does not add any security features, it only relies on what Windows enforces.

You might even be better off with a simple file naming convention, e.g. *_Confidential.* ... someone has to mark all files as confidential anyway, and that would make it apparent without even having to open the image in Paint.NET. It would be easy to write a scheduled task (batch file?) that trolled your content repository for files which are not tagged correctly and to quarantine/rename them as appropriate.

In any event, I don't believe a solution within Paint.NET is the right direction to pursue.

[Cor'e =)]

With all due respect and knowledge of those systems we felt PDN was a perfect place to place a mod, sorry to have bothered the project with this query, thank you for the answers.

[Zieon Eslador]

Is there an option or way to change it to a solid color or something else?

I do feel we have been answered on this. You may if you will consider it a way to always display our proprietary "watermark" BG in the transparent areas for in-house work that may leave the premises, verses everyone's conventional checkerboard, call it an IP security feature.

If I'm not mistaken, these are completely different requests. Let's put that second quote in the first post next time, for my sake. I was starting to think you were just being stubborn.

Still, I'm not seeing your logic here. If the transparency was only visible in your versions of Paint.NET, wouldn't that completely defeat the purpose unless you are taking Screencaps? The transparency screen you design would only be visible on your versions of Paint.NET, and this wouldn't, at all, work as a watermark. Try explaining one more time, and if I can't help with an idea, I guess that's that.

[Rick Brewster]

The transparency screen you design would only be visible on your versions of Paint.NET

That's actually a pretty good point!

[Cor'e =)]

I guess the thread got long and i'm tired, but... =)

...

Our desired scenario is to take instant (but not by prolonged layer manipulations meaning "extra work") screenshots without the checkerboard. And what we wanted as a transparency BG would NEVER EVER be (that would be extremely forbidden) put in the work or file itself, so it's best to be in the application itself, if only the PDN WE use.

Stubborn, heh...

[david.atwell]

What would this program be like if Rick edited the program to fit the individual needs of everyone who uses it...? :-P

[Rick Brewster]

What would this program be like if Rick edited the program to fit the individual needs of everyone who uses it...? :-P

It'd probably look something like you'd see on Lunix -- awful, and then I'd collapse from a nervous breakdown from everyone nipping at my time and energy all day.

[Cor'e =)]

Yeah, we've seen that already!