GFS

Thought I'd bump this again, as it seems such an obvious thing to have: So you have an adjustment mask that you brush in and then you want to change it and start over. IOW, you want to clear (or fill) and restart. Is there a shortcut for doing this? (I note that you can sometimes clear a mask which has been added to an adjustment, by using the delete key, though I haven't worked out why and when yet. This is good and bad/confusing, since everywhere else, the delete key deletes the layer)

I'll add my name to this one. BUT! It should not be just horizontal or vertical, it should be any angle: Modifier key to set the line by click-drag. Then release and you've set the angle. Draw your line, or lines, then Modifier click again to dismiss the constrain. Simple and incredibly useful for precise accurate work.

I'd very much like to be able to delete/edit some EXIF, but not all or nothing. Essentially I'd like to keep the shoot-date and exposure settings and add some IPTC from a preset. Annoyingly, there are few tools around that enable EXIF to be edited. Perhaps software companies are scared of damaging the files? (Which I understand is the most fragile part of them).

Actually ... if Serif could improve their Wacom support, that would do me just fine. I'm more at home with it than a mouse. I use trackpad left-hand, wacom/mouse right-hand.

Computers are good at automation. It's what they do. Alongside that, we have human beings, who are terrible at automation. When we try to persuade human beings to let the computers take care of the automation, they resist. Not always, but often. The current MacOS is full of automation, but I hardly know anyone that uses it. They still prefer to organise everything themselves. A DAM needs to take care of all this work. It is just so much better not to have to even think about it. Any DAM is simply a front-end to a database (as is the Finder or Windows Explorer). I use Aperture to move files around between disks or other locations. It is a much better UI for doing this than the Finder. It also stores all the metadata I need. If I move a file, I don't have to worry about moving any sidecars with it, because Aperture takes care of it for me. The last thing I want is to have to worry about any related files getting lost and having to remember where they are and where I want them to be. The best thing to do with a database, is to embrace it fully and allow it to do its work. It'll be better and more reliable. (Grumpy is really the right word. He is a working sheep dog ... of the live outside in a kennel variety. He didn't like my camera and if he'd had half a chance he'd have had my hand off. The fact that he resembles Yosemite Sam is just a bonus).

I couldn't agree more and in fact, it was one of my disappointments with Serif and Affinity. They've copied Adobe's UI and to be honest it is and always has been, crap. Copying it was a missed opportunity. They could have done something fab instead. Of course, I understand perfectly why they did copy it. I wish though, that they'd *at the very least* changed the totally dumb system of using colour to paint masks in/out. As for Apple dumping Aperture. It is still stunning to me, that Apple could treat a group of professionals in such a way. Thousands of hours of work, per pro, summarily dumped in the dumpster without so much as an explanation. Shocking. I'll never ever ever trust Apple with a pro app again.

I'm afraid I agree 100%. The honeymoon period with Affinity is probably over. The contagious enthusiasm and excitement in the early stages, was fantastic and such a breath of fresh air compared with Adobe. However, the money is hard to refuse and entirely understandable. Also of course, Serif is a Windows software company. It was the Mac software thing that was 'out on a limb'. I'm all for the iPad version, but with the launch of the Windows vs, even though Serif say it's a separate team etc., the astonishing pace of progress has pretty much ground to a halt. I'm hoping that the ex lead-engineer on Aperture, who has released the very excellent 'Raw Power' raw processing software, which is closely based around Aperture, will find the resources to move onto a DAM as well. I think it is tentatively in their sights ... and so it should be, because there is definitely a great market for the Mac, especially as you point out the advantages of the Mac having great raw processing and colour management built-in.

Me too. Trying to move an object very precisely and when you let go, the canvas moves! Would be good to have a toggle for it.

The difference is the noise reduction. It is far more agressive in the AFP vs. Try reducing Luminance noise in AFP and you will see the skin detail increasing significantly. FWIW, I think you can get very close to the same thing with both apps. The difference is essentially in skin tone handling. As an Aperture user, you may want to take a look at a new raw converter being developed by the ex engineering director for Aperture, called Raw Power (produced by Gentlemen Coders). It uses the Apple raw engine (which is excellent) but unlike Aperture, it uses the most recent vs. It is very powerful and easy to use and produces excellent results. Most notable in this context though, is the different skin tone treatment when compared to AFP.

Sort of a stop-gap, but not the real thing.

Opacity is 'missing in action' unfortunately. Also, with Wacom tablets on the Mac, contextual menus in the layers panel do not work correctly (different from when you use a mouse for the same thing). I'm pretty astonished that at this stage Affinity apps are lacking in Wacom support. Seems like it should have been one of the first things to get done and dusted.

Thanks Sima. Wow ... not something you're likely to stumble across by accident. I think Serif need to rethink this a bit. Having 2 different ways of nesting adjustments, which have no difference on their behaviour as a adjustments, but do on their selectioning, is kind of odd. Adjustment layers should really always be added as clipping masks, since being able to select them non-contiguously is useful. Why add unnecessary confusion when life is already confusing enough?

Is there any way to select multiple, non-contiguous, nested (child) adjustment layers, in the same way as they can be selected when they are not nested, i.e. cmd-clicking the layer's name? I don't really see the reasoning behind this behaviour being different when nested, but doubtless there is a reason.

Thanks jhoy. I was hoping I'd be able to quickly clear a mask

And exactly the same as the one I suggested 3 posts prior, so it must be good. :)

Is there any way to clear (or fill) a brush mask with a keystroke?

I'm currently using AFP a LOT (10 hours per day) having switched from a long time app and currently working on the post for a large book project. I'd still like a DAM. As for AFP and AFD, I am carefully noting all the bugs I find along the way ... AFD I'm using a lot less, but dipping my toes from time to time.

I have to say I agree. I'd like to know if they are actually working on something and to have some kind of timeframe. Choosing a DAM is not like choosing an imaging app. The time investment implications are far greater. As for spreading their resources too thin, on too many apps ... I agree with that as well, but Serif are in business and so they want to make the best profit they can. I can't help feeling that producing the Windows version seriously slowed other development, but more than that ... each decision now has far greater implications as it has to be replicated across 3 platforms and 2 apps + perhaps a DAM and a Page Layout app.

Thanks for the info. Perhaps I'm experiencing a problem with the way that AF is making gradients. Here is a comparison from AFPhoto, AFDesigner and a very old app. I made black to white vector gradients at roughly 5000 pixels wide. I imported them into Apple Pages (which does a wonderful job of smoothing gradients) and this is what I see. Top one, inside the red line is AFPhoto. Directly beneath and pretty much aligned shows that AFDesigner is identical. Then underneath with the blurred edges is the old app one. Pages is unable to smooth Affinity gradients, but the other one is very smooth.

Shannen, in case you're looking for normal Wacom support ... it is not there yet. You can't use your Wacom like a pen or pencil where continuous brushing builds opacity, although you can increase by pressing harder, but it's very clunky. I wish there was better support for Wacom, especially in Photo.

Indeed. But equally, the number of colours in a file, has nothing to do with the colour space that you have 'assigned' to that file. If your file has only black and white, then it will 'look' identical in any colour space you assign to it. You will only ever see changes in a file which you 'convert' to and from different colour spaces, if it contains colours that lie outside one or other of those spaces. Bit depth is important for resolution independent graphics, because although they 'should' in theory be absolutely fine in 8bit, they are in fact more 'fragile'. So, if AFPhoto is performing all its internal operations in 16bit (which I expect it is) then a vector graphic output from and 8bit file, will be 16bit right up until the point at which it is rendered in 8bit and so should be okay. If, on the other hand, an 8bit document has already decided that a vector graphic is only in 8bits, then I'm concerned that at some stage during the working process, those bits are not enough. So I beg the question ... is it better to switch to 16bit, prior to output, so that you are in effect 'forcing' AFP to re-calculate the vector elements, or does in make no difference?

Sorry R C-R, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm asking about the point at which a resolution independent graphic is converted to a bit depth. This has nothing to do with colour profiles. Is it calculated at the point of export, regardless of document bit depth, or is it dependent on chosen document bit depth?

Well, you lost me there. :huh:

Don't think I can explain it any more clearly ... but I'll try. You can convert or assign. These are not the same.

Higher bit depth at capture is essential, because you want as much data as you can get. There are differences of opinion about whether or not there is any actual difference between 12bit and 14bit raw data, but in the end ... 14bit isn't going to be worse, is it? :) There are many shenanigans involved in calculating these things too, i.e. 2+2=5. I'm experiencing slow downs with large brushes, well, large for a pixel editor. My old imaging app can happily swish a 20,000 pixel brush back and forth across a 500Mp image ... in real time.