How do i get rid of the white line?

How do i get rid of the white line, or halo line that is on the outside of my clothing designs? any advice will be appreciated...

First advice..... read the entire sticky thread on Alpha Channels and Transparency at the top of this forum (. There's a nice section on white halo pretty near the start of it. Next, look for the "Search this Forum" button at the top of the forum and use it to search the forum archives for "White halo" or any similar terms that seem obvious. This is a very common question, so there are loads of great answers. If you still hav problems, come back and update your question. Many of us have figured out good ways to beat the problem and can help solve it for your particular challenge.

If you prefer not to do any reading whatsoever and want a quick and dirty way to deal with haloing, try the following:

1. In Photoshop, ensure your all your artwork is sitting atop transparency (there should be no coloured background behind your subject).

2. If your work consists of multiple layers, choose SELECT -> ALL, EDIT -> COPY MERGED, EDIT -> PASTE. This will create a new layer that consists of all your artwork. Hide every other layer except this one.

3. With the layer selected, choose SELECT -> LOAD SELECTION and click OK or Ctrl-click (command-click on osx) the layer thumbnail to create a selection of your artwork.

4. Contract your selection by one pixel by choose SELECTION -> MODIFY -> CONTRACT. Enter 1 as the value.

5. Under the channel's palette, create a new channel and with the new channel highlighted and your selection still active, fill with white via EDIT -> FILL. Choose white on the pull down menu next to USE: and click OK. Deselect your document with SELECT -> DESELECT.

6. Export to TARGA format (.TGA) as a 32-bit image and you're finished. The white halo should be gone. If it still persists, then repeat the above but alter the value of step four to 2 pixels. You can also highlight channel #4 (the one you just made), select its contents by ctrl-clicking (command-clicking on the mac) its thumbnail and contract the selection by 1 pixel, choose SELECT -> INVERSE and then fill with black. Make sure you drop your selection by issuing the SELECT -> DESELECT command.

This procedure entails shaving a pixel-wide boundary off your original artwork in order to defeat the haloing effect. There are other more elaborate methods but this is the simplest one if you're not interested in learning about the intricacies of alpha channels.

Well, if you want simple, the easiest solution is to avoid creating the halo in the first place. That way, you don't need to go through elaborate methods to eliminate it.

The halo appears when the edge of a transparent region defined in your alpha channel coincides with a boundary between empty and occupied pixels in the layers you have drawn. In the simplest case, suppose you create a new, empty layer and create a filled shape in it, then use that shape as the mask for making the alpha channel image. When you do that, the edge of the shape and the edge of the opaque region (the white part) in your alpha channel image coincide. When you upload the image to SL, the graphics routine interprets the pixels just outside the boundary not as "empty" pixels but as white ones and you get a halo. All of the methods that people usually recommend for removing the halo (shrinking the boundary by a few pixels, dropping a dark layer under your drawn image, using your blur tool or the Flaming Pear plug-in to make the boundary softer....) involve putting something extra outside the boundary so that those pixels are not "empty."

Instead of going to all that trouble, try just letting the alpha channel image do the "cutting" it is designed to do. If you are making a clothing pattern, let your drawn fabric fill an entire layer. Don't cut out shapes for necklines and sleeves. They will be cut out by the alpha channel image, so you don't need to do it twice. AND, you will never have created a white halo that needs to be erased.

If you have a more complicated design that involves applique, lacework, or other cut-and paste-together fabric, that's fine. The same principle applies. Assemble all the fabric pieces either in a single layer or (better) in a stack of layers, being sure that there are no "empty" regions when you look down at the collection of visible layers. Again, let the alpha channel image do all the heavy work of cutting out the lacy parts, the frilly bodice, the sculptured hemline, etc. You won't get a halo.

Chosen and Robin have called this method a "subtractive" approach when I have mentioned it before in this forum and have suggested that it is too hard for most new designers to understand. Maybe so .... I just know that it makes perfect sense to me and it always works.

A note. I have found that the clothing previewer sometimes shows halos when none exist in the uploaded clothing item.

Use the beta grid. Ignore the clothing previewer (in Upload Image), and just upload to the beta grid, make your texture into clothes, and check there for halo.

While I can't speak for everyone else, there are seldom cases where I would actually work from a single layer that incorporates both the subject foreground and background together. Doing so would require me to yield considerable flexibility in my ability to position artwork elements individually.

It is much safer to assume that most users will have a multitude of layers working in tandem to complete their composition. Most of these layers have individual elements that already include transparent edges and as such, there is no avoiding the work required to produce the alpha channel.

In fact, if you already went through the trouble of "cutting" out your work, creating a separate alpha channel is a trivial affair since it would likely be created from layer's transparency anyway. The bottom line is, you will still need to do the work in order to create the transparency boundaries regardless if it is layer content or alpha channel; if you created one you'll already have the other.

As was previously mentioned, to deal with haloing, you will need to add boundary data or subtract pixels by reducing the size of the alpha mask. The method I explained allows you to retain layer integrity in your file by creating a new merged layer as a base for the composite alpha mask - which is then reduced by 1 or 2 pixels. It is sufficiently flexible to work universally on any image, making it an ideal candidate as a recorded action.

For the record, I believe using Flaming Pear's Solidfy filter is the superior approach as you won't have to re-size the contents of the alpha channel. It also delivers better results for areas within the subject's interior that are semi transparent where there would otherwise be a white overlay.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I do not recommend that either. It would indeed reduce your flexibility drastically. Don't do it.



Yes. However, not all transparent edges are created equal. Some will show up in the final product and therefore need to be in the alpha channel image. Some of those areas are, in fact, also the edges of many elements defined on separate layers in your design. HOWEVER, the only transparent edges you need to worry about in individual layers are ones bounding areas that contain visible components in other layers. Here's where we begin to part ways.



The difference lies in how you and I "cut" the individual layers. If I use a layer to draw elements of a lapel, for example, I know that the layer will need to lie above the layers containing elements of the rest of the bodice. Clearly, I need to "cut out" a transparent area on that side of the lapel so that the lower layers will be visible.

The lapel also borders on the neckline. In the final product, I will obviously need to have transparency there, because that's the edge of the garment. However, there are no visible pixels in the neckline area on any layer below the lapel layer, so there's no reason for me to "cut out" a transparent area on that side of the lapel. I know that the neckline will be defined by the alpha channel image, so I don't need to do it on the lapel layer too.

How do I know? I treat clothing in Photoshop the way I would if I were making it out of fabric. I cut out the pattern first. The pattern, in this context, is the alpha channel image. If I'm making a blouse, the very first thing I do is to create a new layer above the upper body template layers, fill it with black, and reduce the opacity so I can see the template through it. Then I use my pen tool to draw the outline of areas that will define the neckline and sleeves, and I cut those areas out. That's the mask I use to make the alpha channel image, and it's a template that I use as a guide as I then go on to draw each of the many layers that make up the blouse. When I draw the lapel layer, that mask is already there, telling me that I don't need to cut away the pixels on the neckline side.



You're right. If you create a new merged layer as a base for the composite alpha mask, then you have no choice but to add boundary data or shrink the alpha channel image by a few pixels. That's what happens when you remove pixels from layers when you didn't need to. You have to put them back. If you do the job backwards as I'm suggesting, though, there's no need to do that.

Perhaps Chosen and Robin were correct in commenting in earlier threads that this "subtractive" method may be harder for some people to grasp. No method is best for everyone. Once I understood where the white halo comes from, though, this method seemed logical to me. It does mean revisiting the workflow that most people are accustomed to, and that's probably the greatest disadvantage of looking at things this way. I think it's worth keeping in your repertoire, though, because it works. At the very least, it's worth knowing that there's an alternative to erasing the dreaded white halo.



Yeah.... I like Flaming Pear too. If you follow standard workflow and end up with a white halo, the Solidify filter is a great tool. No argument there.

I haven't extensively used clothing templates due to the fact that...

A. There is more than enough competition in that market already and more importantly;
B. I'm fashion impaired.

So I can't relate to your specific example but what you've described though, seems like an ideal candidate for a vector clipping mask or top layer mask with deep checked in the advanced blending layer. If so, I've used that technique for carpets where the pattern was a monotone colour.

It will still create haloing for artwork on individual layers that already contains transparency however. That's why I prefer a copied merge layer approach because it just works whether you're subtracting pixels or using the flaming pear filter.



As you said, not all transparent edges are created equal.

Take text for an example such as multi-coloured wall graffiti art on a separate transparent layer. What choice do you have other than to add or subtract pixels in order to avoid haloing?

Same issue with layers incorporating effects such as glows. You must rasterize them and combine them with the rest of the composition if their effects verge on the edges of the overall image boundary.

Having said that, there's no magic bullet for every instance you run across but the most harm you could possibly do with the merged layer approach is expend a few more seconds of your life

You are definitely right about the competition. I'm VERY glad that I don't count on my meager income from selling virtual garments in SL to keep food on the table...



Now we're on your home turf. Never having attempted wall graffiiti art and not having had occasion to use glow effects in my design work, I can only imagine the challenge. I gleefully concede..... at least, until I have a good reason to step into your realm and try it for myself.



Yes, I quite agree. You use whatever seems best for you. The only reason I posted in this thread was to introduce an option that I find useful but is generally overlooked.