Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GFS

  1. To be honest, having now searched far and wide I don't think it can be done in AF-Photo (just as it can't in PS) which is a shame, because although it's a difficult tool to use, it can be a very useful tool. Here you see it being used in an HSV context, but it can also be used in RGB and CMYK. Also, this is a selective colour system, where you select and add which HSV values you want to alter on the left and then determine what you want to do with them on the right.
  2. No ... but it's sort of similar, in as much as you are reducing the number of colours, but you wouldn't necessarily get the breaking up of tones. In some ways you would think of it as reducing contrast of a colour, because you're squeezing/converging the tones together. I can't find anything in AF-Photo that does it, but I'm just starting to try and learn it ...
  3. Is there a colour tool in AF-Photo that will squeeze, or converge colours together?
  4. Wow!! How can there not be pressure sensitivity? That's crazy. Thanks for the workarounds evtonic3, but really ... this is a serious omission. :o
  5. How do I distort an entire layer group, so that its mask(s) is(are) distorted with it, as you would with an alpha channel?
  6. Thanks Madame! I actually tried every which way you can imagine, before making the screen-movie. Nothing I could do would allow me to edit the mask, until I did as Jimmy suggested.
  7. This isn't working for me. How do I turn on opacity pressure sensitivity for my Wacom?
  8. Seems to just download directly ... but you'll be able to play it from there.
  9. Maybe you're using Firefox or something which isn't loading the quicktime plugin correctly. Perhaps this direct link to the desktop size file will work.
  10. Thanks Jimmy! I would never have guessed to do that. How would I have rasterised? All I did was add a pixel layer, which I used for cloning. (Is there any kind of manual yet. The help is next to useless for this sort of thing and I could watch endless videos and never find the answer.)
  11. Yes I understand Stefano and you're quite right. But I'm used to working in a very old app that doesn't need to make the mask separately. The brush is the mask. So it's disappointing to see that progress 20 years later, is not actually progress. It seems like a missed opportunity for Affinity. Instead of just copying PS, they could have re-thought some of this stuff.
  12. Yes Stefano. A brush tool that toggles from brush-in to brush-out with a modifier key. (Like the masking tools in Affinity). It's a simple, intuitive way to work. You only need to remember one modifier key, because it always toggles the brush, no matter what tool you're using. This is how I've been working (non-destructively) since 1995.
  13. Thanks Stefano. Sigh ... I've managed to avoid Photoshop through many years. And now it seems if I want to use Affinity Photo ... I have to learn Photoshop. Question: Wasn't making a new app an opportunity to do something smarter? What's wrong with ... Erase with the brush. Press Option - paint in with the brush? Or to get really radical, Paint in with brush, Press Option - paint out with the brush? How hard does it need to be?
  14. This is doubtless a really dumb question ... In Photo, if I do something as basic as use the eraser brush tool to remove part of a pixel (background) layer. How do I brush it back in? When I try with the paint brush tool, it just paints whatever colour is selected in the colour palette.
  15. + 1 as very keen to see a replacement for Aperture. I never liked Lr, especially the appaling early UI, but also its rigid modes. Aperture was also much better as a management tool and the choice of Managed or Referenced on a file-by-file basis is terrific. My one BIG please ... would be ... PLEASE provide some way of retaining as much of an Aperture library as possible in transition ... including adjustments. I have no idea how you might acheive this, but as a possible, I can say that Aperture has deep Applescript support and perhaps Apple's own Sal Soghoian could be persuaded to help seeing as he has done some very clever Aperture stuff in the past? Anyway ... can't wait to see what you come up with, as I'm holding out for the time being in Aperture and reporting any bugs in MacOS betas that I come across, in the hope that it will last until there's an appealing alternative. :)
  16. Ben, these are un-compressed tiffs. Would you like me to email you a tiff for testing. AP always does this ... even when the tiff is passed through Aperture, then output as a version.
  17. Thanks Ben. This tiff is coming out of an old Mac software. So is the file size different simply down to a different way of writing the file, as opposed to a compression algorithm? (Is there any way in AP to batch open/save this type of file? Seems like a good way to save on having to buy new hard drives.)
  18. When I open a tiff in AP and subsequently output to tiff via either Save or Export, the file size has significantly reduced - in this case 600Mb becomes 320Mb. Saving to .afphoto also reduces to the same size. The dimensions are unaltered. Can someone explain to me what's happening?
  19. Hi, I was eager to see how the 'pro' print tools work in AF Photo 1.4, but can't seem to find either black point compensation or how to choose the intent. Am I missing something?
  20. Hi, I'm wondering how to copy/paste adjustments from one layer to another ... can't find a way. Specifically, I have two stacked (aligned) images, which I want to apply identical treatment to. This would be liquify, rotation and perhaps other adjustments. How can I do this?
  21. Hi aitte and many thanks for the comprehensive explanation. I now understand why this happens with some apps. However, it seems that the more Mac focussed apps still cater to the difference, perhaps because they just never changed the legacy code? Photoshop is one of these, as are the Apple apps, e.g. Aperture. So clearly these other apps are doing something that enable tiffs to be read by MM machines *as well as* II machines? Or am I misunderstanding? PS actually offers the choice every time you Save As a tiff, but 'Mac' is always already selected in the dialog box *unless* the tiff was made by Affinity or some of the very much 'cross-platform' apps, written in weird java style languages or primarily for PC (they always have a look) e.g. Helicon Focus. Aperture exported tiffs open fine on either MM or II. I might also point out, that Apple's own *brand new* Photos app, exports tiffs that can be opened without any difficulty on legacy hardware, so clearly, there is something that Affinity is not doing when exporting tiffs (actually there's quite a lot when you look at the state of the alpha channels too). I realise there are few of us working with old apps/hardware (but I do so for a real reason) and it seems a shame to close the door on compatibility at this stage of development ... the devil is always in the details.
  22. Yes it is for use on an old Mac. The thing is, Affinity Photo is Mac only software, so why not just ensure that it is in Mac format anyway and keep us weirdos happy. :)
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.