Would option to place objects at bottom of layer stack be helpful?

[David O'Neil]

Before doing a dear Xara, I figured I'd ask here, because maybe someone sees something I'm missing to simplify the task another way.

Sometimes I find myself working from a central point outward. Say there's a blue blob somewhere, and I'm trying to blend it into the background. I would start with a small feathered ellipse for the central location, then place more feathered ellipses (or other shapes) around it (and partially under it), moving them to the back of the layer stack and then changing their color slightly, to get the falloff I want. Repeat this a couple hundred (or more) times, and you can get something that simulates natural variations more accurately than most other vector approaches do.

If there was a switchable toggle to place objects on the bottom of the layer stack, the previous process would be vastly simplified, because you could work outward more easily on a layer above the bitmap. Your objects wouldn't obscure objects you previously placed, and the bitmap would remain visible on areas you hadn't already colored over the way you wanted to.

Thoughts? Other ideas? Something I'm missing that already exists?

Thanks,
David

[pauland]

Unless I've misunderstood, couldn't the same effect be created by creating a layer and adding all the feathered shapes to that (objects on higher layers wouldn't be obscured). It would mean that you use layers in your workflow.

[Soquili]

Do the Move to Layer in Front and Move to Layer Behind not work for your needs?

[handrawn]

I agree David, it would be useful - might save a bit of wear on the ctrl+b key too [or whatever you have 'put to back' set as]

layers are beside the point here, if I read you right, because each shape on its own layer would be even worse than doing a ctrl+b for each object created within a single layer, in terms of ease and speed

[David O'Neil]

Steve has understood me--it would be placing each object on the back of the object list in the current layer. That would allow you to work outwards from a central point in a much easier manner than can currently be done.

edit - perhaps I shouldn't have used the term 'layer stack' in the title. Sorry.

[pauland]

It might be less tedious creating a new layer, putting all your shapes on there, then group and copy them onto your drawing moving them to the back.

[David O'Neil]

You aren't seeing what I'm trying to say, so I'll try again. I'm not talking about creating new layers. I'm wondering if a toggle-able option to place new objects 'underneath' other objects in the current layer would be beneficial for some circumstances--particularly, when working outward from a central point as described in my first post.

[Soquili]

Yes I see what you are saying David. That would be useful as a toggle option.

[pauland]

You aren't seeing what I'm trying to say

I think I do.

I'm not talking about creating new layers.

No, you're not but I am!

I just suggested creating a seperate layer to build your shape on, might help your workflow. I understand what you are saying and my suggestion is just to make your life easier given the lack of the automated "put to back". With a seperate temporary layer you don't need it.

1. create temporary layer
2. Populate temporary layer with shape - no need to put to back.
3. Copy from temporary layer to drawing layer.

repeat 2 & 3

4. delete temporary layer

It's just a suggestion, feel free to ignore it. It's not intended as a rejection of your suggestion.

[David O'Neil]

...No, you're not but I am [talking about creating new layers]!

Doing that, when you move them to the top layer, they would come in in front of the objects, and defeat the purpose. Also, if you are doing more than five or so shapes, then you will need another layer under that, and then another layer under that,... With a toggle, no new layers--just toggle and work outward for as long as you want.

edit - I see that you mentioned 'putting to back' in post #6, so you are seeing what I'm trying to accomplish. Thanks for the suggestion, now that I know we were communicating but I just didn't know it. I believe the toggle would be a much simpler alternative, but I understand what you are saying now.