eobet

Is there a setting for this that I can't find, or named something else? I'm talking about when you're editing a high bitdepth image and some areas look white, but you know there's some information in there still, and you don't want to adjust the entire image with the exposure slider, only the white areas.

The problem is still there! Isn't this critical enough to warrant a hotfix? I mean, people who are halfway between switching might reconsider with blatantly obvious issues like this...

I also came to this forum looking for this feature. I used it a lot in Photoshop, because we export depth maps from 3D renders, so it's nice to be able to just do two clicks inside the actual render to set the range we want.

Replying here too, as I would also like an explicit percentage feature in the menu (and so does a lot of other people it seems, this is the fourth thread I've found on the same subject). People shouldn't have to search online forums to find hidden features which should be made obvious through the interface.

No, I want the entry in the drop down list. I don't want a new user (or someone I teach) have to go to a forum and ask people to find out a hidden method. I want it explicitly shown in the interface.

I still would like a resize with percent option (second thread with this ask I found, btw).

I still would like a resize with percent option.

Hello, I now managed to recreate it once again, even on 1.7.2: Please see attached example file: This is a showstopper for me when it comes to doing icon design. I need a 100% preview while I'm working in zoomed mode. untitled.afdesign

Well, I can now also report that even in Windows 10 (1903), the Publisher icon takes over .afdesign files (but not .afphoto files)...

I tried both, and restarted my computer in between. All icons are still Publisher, even though the behaviour is changed.

I bought all three apps, and after installing them, I get the Publisher icon on both photoshop and illustrator files. Annoyingly, all those files also opened with Publisher, but I was able to change that with cmd-i and then the "open with" option. But the orange icons remain on the files. Any fix?

Thanks for the detailed explanation, but I can't for the life of me get the objects to stack the way it is in your picture. Does the rectangle mask object need to be configured in a certain way in order to stack like this? EDIT: If I drag the HSL adjustment OUT of the layer, and leave it just on its own, THEN I was able to drop the rectangle onto it. This was way more difficult than it needed to be, imo.

Please see the attached image. If you note the thumbnail on the lowest layer, there should be a column of yellow squares to the right in the picture. However, the adjustment layer on top, that I've put a mask on, just fills this in with white, instead of as expected, become transparent outside of the masking area. Is this a bug, and if not, what is the workaround here? EDIT: I just now noticed that there's a "crop" symbol on my mask layer. I have no idea where that comes from.

I grabbed some screenshots of an app and dragged them into Affinity Photo, and for some weird reason, they are blurry, even after making sure I've "resized" them to "original size". Only one of them became crisp after a few resize attempts:

That link doesn't seem to work anymore, but I'm interested in the scattering of vector based objects, and not pixel based. Is that possible?

Same here. Saying and doing nothing makes the user believe that the program isn't working correctly. I see zero reason why selecting a piece of an image layer for copying and pasting wouldn't work. Just rasterize the result. Deleting a piece of an image layer should just automatically create a mask with that piece masked out. That would not only do what the user expected it to do, but it will also implicitly teach the user about the difference between an image and a pixel layer (and remind an experienced user who might forget in a hurry, because the label is very small)!

No, it also happens when you paste from another application. But imo, it's a horrible inconvenience. There should be an option to silently convert all image layers to pixel layers in Affinity Photo, and also perhaps an option to have a popup that asks you about it.

Oh, it doesn't work on an image layer? It has to be pixel? Still, I don't think the situation above should ever be allowed to happen...

Make a selection Make sure a layer is highlighted Cut Result: The entire layer is cut Expected result: Just the selection from the active layer should be cut --- How can I change this crazy, crazy behavior of Affinity Photo?

Whoops, seems checking "maximum editability" instead of accuracy actually preserved the masks (after converting to rgb8).

I can't share example files (because I actually attempted to use Affinity in a production environment), but I've never been able to export masks from Affinity Photo to PSD. If I leave the document in 32-bit mode and export the PSD, the masks import all garbled in both CS 5.1 and CC 2019, and if I convert the document to 8-bit mode, the masks just import empty. I know Procreate also has trouble with masks to and from Photoshop, so I guess this isn't an easy issue to solve, but it's a complete showstopper in attempting to use Affinity with people who are using Photoshop.

Steps to reproduce: Open a document with a pixel layer that has a clipping mask in it. Right click that mask and choose edit mask Hold alt to get the color picker and pick a color anywhere on the mask Result: The picked color is picked from the pixel layer instead of the mask layer Expected result: When editing a mask, the color picker should only pick colors from that mask Using Affinity Photo 1.7.1.404

Ok, stop the presses, I just saw this video: First off, funny that they mention a “bug” which is maybe what the OP was actually referring to, but then in the end they reveal the magic trick I didn’t know about: All adjustment layers in Affinity are also masks! So, forget my silly mock-up above (although that would be added functionality), turns out what I wanted is already in Affinity Photo, and again, one step simpler than in Photoshop! Hats off to the developers.

Interesting. This feels like a cumbersome shortcoming in Affinity Photo. Ideally, I think it would look like this (quick mock-up): (Just for reference, in Photoshop, it looks like this:) It's a bit weird that this doesn't exist since multiple masks per layer in Affinity works so much better than it does in Photoshop... EDIT: Also, the workaround is nice and all, but I can tell you that it's a showstopper for the graphics guys at work. They wouldn't tolerate that workaround.

I don't think your answer to question 2 is correct. I think he wants the perspective tool. The perspective tool in Photoshop is pretty restrictive, but in Affinity, it behaves like the distort tool (which is also called "free transform" in newer versions of Photoshop).