smadell

One nice difference between version 1.6.7 (the retail version) and version 1.7 (the beta) is the addition of "Move Inside" and "Move Outside" on the Arrange menu. When I choose a layer immediately above an existing group, choosing the "Move Inside" command will put that layer into the group. The other thing you have to know about navigating in and out of groups is that, once you have chosen a layer inside a group, the only way to get out of the group is to choose the group itself (the "parent layer") and then add layers, move around, etc. I have attached 2 files. The first is an .afphoto file with a picture of a Red Flower and 4 adjustment layers on top of it. Open this file WITH THE BETA VERSION, not the retail version. The second file is a zipped .afmacro file. Import this from the hamburger menu in the MACROS panel (not from the Library panel). When you run the macro, it initially chooses the bottom layer (the photo itself) and then sequentially moves up the stack to the 4 adjustments. At the first adjustment, it creates a Group. At the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th adjustment layers, it uses the "Move Inside" command. Then, the Group itself is selected and the "Add Mask" command is given. This should demonstrate that what you are trying to do is certainly possible, even without scripting, variables, loops, etc. Red Flower with 4 Adjustments.afphoto Group Adjustments & Insert Mask.afmacro.zip

So, my prediction (which, admittedly, I was not bold enough to make prior to testing it out) is this: 1) The fully saturated patches would be completely white in a saturation mask. This means the first 6 rows (RGBCMY) in the first column. 2) Anything that is black, white, or grey will be completely black in a saturation mask, since those neutral colors should be 0% saturated. This includes the last 3 rows (Bk, Gy, and Wt) in all of the columns, and the far right ends of the first 6 rows of the second, third, and fourth column. As those patches transition to black, white, or grey, they also transition from 100% saturated (on the left) to 0% saturated (on the right). 3) In the first 6 rows of the right-most 3 columns, the saturation mask should resemble a gradient going from white to black. I applied a saturation mask to your patches (above) using the first of my macro set - "Saturation Mask - Greyscale" - and the result is shown below. I believe this is just as it should be. Cheers. - smadell

Remember what I said about being "more cerebral" about this than I was? I followed the link to the coding page (from your post, above) and was immediately engulfed in fog. I can't say that any real information permeated the thick crust that has enveloped what is left of my mathematical brain. At any rate, I'm glad you like the saturation mask technique. What did you think about the "Fix over- and under-saturated images..." macros?

Hey, Dave... You're being far more cerebral about this than I was - I'm not completely sure WHY this works, it's just that it does. I give a lot of credit to Tony Kuyper who realized this could be done in the first place, and that's why I linked to his post. As to averages vs. weighting, I originally thought about using Apply Image and using Equations in the Lab color space. I was hoping to find a way to transfer saturation from the a and b channels into the L channel, while setting the a and b channels to 0. I have no idea if that will work, since the Selective Color Adjustment method kind of fell into my lap, and was so straightforward (or, shall I say, so easy) that I didn't do any investigation on the Apply Image idea. However, I know that Lab color space is perceptually linear, so that saturation is a strict percentage rather than a weighted value. Beyond that, I just don't know. - smadell

I stumbled across a web page by Tony Kuyper, and he describes a really simple (and allegedly better) method of creating saturation masks. I have posted a link to his web page along with a bunch of macros that automate this process. My post is in the Resources section, here:

I have been reading Dave Straker’s post about Saturation Masks, and the variety of methods he and others have used to construct them. In looking into this further, I stumbled across a web page written by Tony Kuyper, and he describes a really simple way of creating a Saturation Mask using a Selective Color adjustment layer. A link to his web page is included below: http://goodlight.us/writing/saturationmasks/satmask-1.html I have attached a Macros Category (import this from the “hamburger” menu on the Library panel) that includes 6 different macros. Important Note - Because of a bug in the Selective Color adjustment layer, these macros will not work in version 1.6 of Affinity Photo. However, the apparent bug has been squashed in version 1.7, and the macros give the proper results. At this point, use the macros ONLY in the version 1.7 beta and, presumably, in any version which follows it. Saturation Mask - Greyscale This macro creates a greyscale version of a saturation mask, based on a “merge visible” pixel layer that takes all of the visible layers into account. Vibrance Mask - Greyscale This macro creates a greyscale version of a Vibrance Mask. A vibrance mask is the inverse of a saturation mask, and favors areas of relatively low saturation. Vibrance Masks can be used to apply adjustments, etc. to poorly saturated pixels, while masking that adjustment from highly saturated pixels. Saturation Mask - Create Mask This macro creates a Mask layer out of the greyscale version of the mask. The mask is placed at the top of the layer stack, and can be used as needed. Vibrance Mask - Create Mask Similar to the above, this macro creates a Mask layer out of the Vibrance Mask greyscale layer. Fix OVER-Saturated Image This macro puts a 50% grey fill layer at the top of the layer stack, and sets the Blend Mode to Saturation. Without anything further, this would have the effect of desaturating all of the colors in an image. However, the macro attaches a Saturation Mask to the fill layer, which desaturates the colors relative to their existing saturation level. (More highly saturated pixels are affected more strongly.) Finally, the macro asks the user “How much desaturation?” should be applied. This sets the opacity of the fill layer, and can change the amount of DE-saturation applied. Fix UNDER-Saturated Image This macro puts an HSL adjustment layer at the top of the layer stack, and attaches a Vibrance Mask to the adjustment. The macro asks the user “How much saturation?” and this affects the Saturation slider inside the HSL adjustment. The vibrance mask causes the HSL adjustment to be applied more strongly to pixels with low saturation, and minimizes its effect on highly saturated pixels. Saturation Masks.afmacros.zip

I'm not 100% sure of myself in answering, but my first thought is: is your image composed of more than 1 layer? The Mesh Warp is a destructive tool, and only works on a single layer. If, for instance, you use it on a top layer, it may reveal things in underlying layers that you did not intend. Also, and related, was there any masking involved? That could probably screw things up, too. My suggestion would be to do a "Merge Visible" and then apply the Mesh Warp tool to that merged layer. I doubt that saving the JPG, closing and re-opening will do anything substantive to help this along. If you want to post the image (post the .afphoto file, not the JPG) I and others can look and make suggestions. No promises, though...

asug8237... Fixing something like this with the Perspective Tool is kind of hit and miss, but it can work. As firstdefence said, the Mesh Warp Tool is better suited to this. Be sure to set the pull down menu to "Source" before you do anything, so that you can set your corner points and then drag them to where the corners are in the picture. When you switch back to "Destination" on the menu, the mesh distorts to give you the perfect rectangle. And, because I just got a copy of ScreenFlow and am enjoying the hell out of it, here's a video! mesh warp.mp4

altae... Have a look, if you like, at a set of Luminosity Masks for Adjustments & Filters (link below). This may solve your problem. Instead of creating a Preset for each specific Blend Options curve, record it as a 1-step macro. Use the "Underlying Layer" side of the Blend Options graphs, and this takes its cues from the layers underneath the adjustment/filter that need masking. Of course, these are luminosity masks – you obviously have other, more personal and specific curves that you use. I offer the macros below as an example. Luminosity Blend Options for Adjustments.afmacros.zip - smadell

Not exactly a “preset,” but save them as Macros.

It's not available in the current Affinity Photo Beta on my Mac (see screenshot). It would seem nice if it was a setting in Preferences, rather than a one-by-one setting in New Document.

Alain... Dave is on Windows; I am on a Mac. However, the Image Placement Policy you refer to is available in Publisher, but it is not available in Photo. I can confirm (at least on my Mac) that placing an image into a document in Affinity Photo results in the Image Policy question that Dave refers to, and does not appear to be something that can be shut off.

I’ve been able to create an .mp4 video and just drag it into the message area of the forum, and this results in an embedded video that plays just fine.

There are so many things wrong with your understanding of all this. 1) When you put a pixel layer on top of another pixel layer (and assuming that the Blend Mode is "normal" - the default value) then the top pixel layer will completely obscure the bottom layer. Anything you do to the bottom layer will NOT be visible, because the top layer is obscuring it. 2) When you put an Adjustment Layer on top of a layer, or on top of a stack of layers, it applies itself to whatever is visible from below. If you have a pixel layer with a mask, and another pixel layer beneath it, an Adjustment Layer at the top of the stack will apply itself to whatever portions of the 2 layers are visible. 3) If you want to limit an Adjustment Layer to just 1 layer, you have to drag it "into" that layer, so that it becomes a Child of the layer. This limits its effect to that layer, and ignores the other layers. So... When you duplicate the picture and apply a mask to the top layer, you have revealed the duplicate below. In other words, the net total is still the original picture. If you put a Layers adjustment on top of all that, you are applying the Layers adjustment to whatever trickles up to meet it - in this case, you are applying the Levels Adjustment to the equivalent of the original image. To do what you are trying to do, duplicate the original photo, add a Levels adjustment, and then drag that Levels adjustment over the top layer so that it becomes a child of that layer. Then, any changes will only be seen on the layer which "contains" the adjustment. If you add a mask to the layer with the adjustment, you can hide part of that layer to reveal the UN-adjusted layer underneath. (see my screenshot)

ianrb... I made you a short video (no sound) that demonstrates what I was able to do to re-create your black and white image. It involves separating the birds into their own layer, and creating an inverted black and white version of the clouds using the Red channel. Also, I used the brush (in OVERLAY mode - from the Context Toolbar) to darken up the birds so they were blacker, instead of looking grey. Hope this helps you. - smadell Creating Black & White Geese.mp4 ps - note that I am working in "Separated Mode" but that this is just a personal preference. Obviously, it would have no effect on the workflow if you didn't choose to do that.