JimGoshorn

So I painted a mask with black and took a reading of the mask thumbnail in dark mode and I got 25,25,25. I then changed the interface to light mode and took a reading of the same mask and I got 195,195,195.

I tried the Light interface and noticed something odd. In the Dark interface, if you paint black onto a mask it appears black on the layer thumbnail. If you do the same thing with the interface set to light, the mask thumbnail will appear gray instead of black. Am I missing something?

Thank you very much for the reply. It was confusing me a bit but I guess I should have known better 😕 Jim

I have come across something odd when trying out AP 90 day trial on Windows 10. I used the Cog shape to draw a path in AP but when I look at it zoomed in, it appears pixelated. I tried resetting user settings and I even tried resetting AP using Apps And Features. I can open the same file (enclosed) in AD and the Cog displays perfectly. Am I missing something? Jim PathTest.afphoto

Time will tell if they will replace the Adobe apps. They both have very innovative solutions for our workflows and it's too soon to throw out the baby with the bathwater because of an inaccuracy. I think that we can all agree that these developers are more interested in satisfying our requests than most are so there are times that we must agree to disagree and move on.

Pardon, I stand corrected and it's even worse for me since my mother was an English major. She's probably looking down on me with that you should have known better look on her face :lol:

I think this issue can be chalked up to people either not knowing the difference between dpi and ppi or people knowing better but so used to hearing the incorrect usage that they understand the intent. It's like if a recipe calls for 3 tablespoons of sugar, many people will say 3 tablespoon fulls when the correct way to say it is 3 tablespoons full. BTW MrFlexo, PPI is actually pixels per inch not points per inch when referring to resolution if you wish to be proper :)

Ben, thanks for the explanation. So history is done based on the changes made to the document and the deterministic state is the total document? I gather it's not practical to record history based on objects instead of documents? So if I understand your explanation, if I delete an object and the history is non-linear (or object oriented), there isn't a way to easily validate that deletion at a later point in history. Without linearity, the means that the only way to handle history would be to basically replay all the previous steps up to the selected point? And I presume that the issue is compounded since history can be saved within the document and that document can be opened in multiple apps.

I wonder if it would be possible for the history steps to be independent of each other? Here's my idea: If the steps are independent and the user could name the steps so you know what object they pertain to, then if you wanted to you could uncheck a step you wanted removed without affecting the rest of the art. I say uncheck because if you wanted to you could recheck it to put the step back or if you did something else to the object at that point, the checked step would be removed and your latest action would be recorded. Don't know if it's too complex to be done and it would require the user to name each step to make it work. Just a thought...

I started looking for some of the files and it appears that there are multiple preference files which leads me to believe that each version of the betas creates it's own support files and I don't want to delete the wrong files.

What about supporting files such as preferences? I should have worded my question better to ask specifically about supporting files. Sorry. Thanks! Jim

I was wondering what one has to do to remove a beta version of Designer or Photo when the final MAS version is issued? Thanks! Jim

+1

Thanks Andy. If you could replicate the functionality of Adobe's Apply Image dialog that's a major step forward. Can't wait to see what you figure out. You guys really need to be complemented again for your efforts and attention to our needs!

As the originator of the other thread and a member of the Color Theory group, I will add my support for these features here as well.

Hopefully, you will have more influence with the developers than I have had. Some people see my point and agree but obviously not enough. If Affinity doesn't provide this functionality, as you say, they will lose a segment of their desired market.

"I am also incredibly pleased to hear that integration with the Astute Graphics tools is at least being contemplated..." If Affinity can make that happen, that would be fantastic. Their plug-ins are a main reason to keep Illustrator.

+1

Considering doing a multiuser DAM would involve writing both client and server software (along with all the complexities that leads to) and dealing with the amount of data that has to be sent back and forth between the client and server, it could be a while (if ever) before there will be a DAM of that type on the market.

Many people are asking the same question. On their website it says "As we continue to focus our long-term investments in building incredible photo editing tools for mobile, including Google Photos and Snapseed, we’ve decided to make the Nik Collection desktop suite available for free, so that now anyone can use it" which indicates that they are more interested in developing for mobile vs. the desktop so they are giving it away.

Notes are a necessity. What I would like to see is the ability to add notes to layers and groups as well.

If you decide to use OSX's built in versioning, PLEASE allow us to delete versions. Apple stopped doing that so the file that holds versions just keeps getting bigger and bigger. The only way I have found around it is to rename the file in the Finder that I am going to modify, open it, duplicate the open document (cmd-shift-s) and then work on the duplicate and save that. The other suggestion would be to allow us to specify how many versions back we want to keep and the software would automatically delete older versions beyond that point.

+1

They do not use the method which requires Apply Image. My guess is the Gaussian Blur and High Pass. I started this thread back last July hoping that enough people would get behind the request to encourage the developers to add an Apply Image like Photoshop has (or maybe better given their ingenuity). So far, it doesn't look too hopeful :(

Gave it some more thought and how about this: Presuming that there will be both pages and artboards, how about separate panels dedicated to each. When you select a page in the pages panel, all artboards associated with it are highlighted in the artboards panel. Then you select one of the artboards and all layers associated with it are highlighted in the layers panel. It's a little lengthier process but it keeps things both separated and associated. If you wanted the process to be a bit more aggressive, you could set up a kind of isolation where selecting a page isolates all artboards in the artboards panel and selecting an artboard isolates all associated layers in the layers panel. How's that?