BC15

I don't see any benefit of compressing tif files apart from them taking up less space and storage is so cheap nowadays that this is not an issue, even for a largeish image library like mine. I'm not sure (because I don't know!) that compressing the tif would remove the alpha channel anyway and it's this that is the issue, rather than the size. Storing full size tifs is just a personal choice and I'm happy with this as my philosophy is the least processing on an image the better. The issue here is not actually the size of the tif, it is the fact that there is an extra channel within it which other software (like photoshop) treats as a layer even if it's not! The size was just something I noticed when Canon's DPP 4 (which I have to use to copy the Affinity Photo 8 bits to new 8 bits to recreate the missing EXIF thumnbail) failed to recognise the Affinity tif with the extra channel. If this hadn't happened I probably would not have noticed it. Compatability with other software is crucial. Most of my agents use jpegs and because of the missing EXIF thumbnail I also have to batch process the 8 bit files in DPP 4 to create them and as this doesn't recognise the tifs with embedded alpa channel this wouldn't work either and this is something I do on a regular basis (I don't save jpegs in my library, just generate them from the 8 bit tifs when required).

Fair enough - the important thing is that the fill works and gives me what I need with very little additional effort required...... 'Problem' solved!

The examples I sent were just roughly done - I didn't realise the importance of any transparent pixels at this time. To double check, I took a picture of a bright grey sky and did the crop revealing the transparent pixels at the top. I cropped just a little in from both edges to make sure there were no transparent pixels at the horizontal edges. I then carefully cloned the transparent area with pixels from the rest of the image. I then filled the alpha channel and viewed the almost white image at 100%. No black pixels appeared and they would have easily shown up against the white pixels that the image consisted of.

Going to the channels tab and using Fill as you suggested does work, even though no pixels are actually filled in as they are already 'filled' with cloned material from the rest of the image and no black pixels from the fill are present. Gives me the result I want though................

Sorry I don't understand - If it only exists when I have transparent pixels, how come it is included in the tif when I have replaced all of those transparent pixels by pixels cloned from the rest of the image? I am not trying to pick holes in Affinty Photo. I am trying to work with it as a replacement to Photoshop. I tried asking questions about what to me was an issue on the forum, but I didn't get any responses that explained what was happening. I had initally thought I was probably doing something wrong. When this didn't get me anywhere I decided that my only course of action was to report it as a 'bug'. It is an issue to me and I am simply looking for a solution where the alpha 'layer' or whatever it is can be 'flattened' as it can be in photoshop, to revert the file to a 'normal' tif with a 'normal' size.

Not sure I understand the alpha channel, but from what you are saying this only exists when there are transparent pixels? If that is the case, when I fill in all those pixels should this not disappear? Is the alpha channel exported with the tiff something different to a layer? Photoshop appears to treat this as a layer as it appears as a 'Layer 0' and can be flattened. Canon's DPP 4 software also cannot read this larger tif with embedded alpa channel. I could use photoshop to overcome what to me is a 'problem', but I am trying to replace photoshop with affinity photo..... Is there no way of flattening this alpha channel to make the 8 bit file the 'correct' file size (ie half the 16 bit file size).

I'm attaching a series of screen prints which shows the processing of the 16 bit file in Affinity Photo....... Screen 1.mht

No - the file I've just attached is the 8 bit output file that is correct. The file I sent you before is the one that has the layer called 8 bit problem tif. Both these files are from the same 16 bit input tif (which I also sent you). The problem file is when I've used the crop tool as describes, the most recent one is when I have not done this. The difference in size between these 2 files is 7.8 mb.

Not sure how to do this. I am sending the same file where the file size is correct where I haven't cropped....... I'm sure there must be a hidden layer in the larger file - one that Affinty creates when cropping outside the image boundary, but a layer that doesn't show up in Affinity itself, although it does show up as Layer 0 when the 8 bit image is viewed in Photoshop. My workflow for the problem image I sent you is very straightforward as follows: Open 16 bit image Using the crop tool at the absolute size I move the crop tool up to crop out the bottom part of the image and create empty space at the top of the image. Using the clone tool I then copy some of the image content into the empty space at the top. I then export the image as an 8 bit tiff. 8_Bit_Image_normal.tiff

No - This is always unticked. Just noticed that this problem occurs however small the amount of space outside the image is. I just cropped an image to straighten it and I noticed I left just a tiny space in one corner that was outside the original image. I cloned this space out, but when save the image was 76.2 mb instead of 57 mb. I'm sure you can very easily duplicate this with any 16 bit image. Also - I have tried Document / Flatten, even though no layers are shown in Affinity Photo, but this makes no difference.

To try and get a smaller file I have used an old 16 bit file which is only 47mb in size, which I attach. When I export this in Affinity as an 8 bit file this becomes a 23.4mb, which is correct. When I use the crop tool as described and then export it as an 8 bit file it's size is 31.2 mb which is incorrect. I am attaching both the 16 bit input file and the 8 bit problem file as requested.... 8_Bit_problem.tiff 16_Bit_Image.TIF

When processing a 114 mb 16 bit tif file, in Affinity Photo, after various adjustment layers are made and then flattened, the file is exported as an 8 bit tif file with the size of 57 mb as you would expect. However when the crop tool is used to reposition the image to cut the bottom part of the image and leave a blank area at the top of the image for later filling in using the clone tool, the size of the exported 8 bit tif is 76.2 mb. The dimensions of the image is correct, just the file size is 'wrong'. The crop parameters are exactly the same dimensions as the original. Before exporting I have added other adjustment layers and then flattened the image, but whether I do this or not, the output size is still 76.2 mb. If I open this exported 8 bit file in Photoshop it shows as 'Layer 0' and if I then flatten it in Photoshop it then saves as a 57 mb file. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Affinity Photo is creating an invisible layer when the crop tool is used in this way and this layer cannot be flattened within Affinity itself. I have used this technique now on a few images, each with different amounts of crop used and the output file is always the same - 76.2 mb.

R C_R - Thanks for the suggestion, but I require uncompressed Tif files and this works fine with all other images. It's looking increasingly like a bug in Affinity, so I'll have to report it.

If I open the 8 bit image in Photoshop it appears as 'Layer 0'. If I go to save it as it is it asks 'Do you want to include layers'. If I flatten the image in Photoshop and then save it it is saved as the correct size (57 mb). It would appear that for some reasom Affinity is saving it with a layer, although the image has been flattened. In Affinity I then tried just moving the crop box to include empty space above the image and roughly filled it. I did not add any adjustment layers, so there were no layers to flatten. When exported it was 76.2 mb. The only conclusion I can draw is that Affinity is creating and 'invisible' layer and saving it regardless, increasing the file size.

Hi Walt - No this box is always unticked......