smadell
-
Posts
1,136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by smadell
-
-
78deluxe...
The FastRawViewer Preferences are daunting, to say the least. There are so many options, it's hard to know how to set it up. However, on the last page of the Preferences (the tab noted as "Other" in the list) you can set how often the application looks for updates. I have it set to every 7 days. In my experience, these updates are not terribly frequent; I imagine that's because the application is not one that is continually adding new features (other than new cameras to support). Check out the blog portion of their site ( https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog ) for specifics about what's new in each of their updates. Also, they say that they do not put the newest updates into the "auto check for updates" results for a while, in case an update is seriously flawed. Currently, they are on version 1.5.6 – my version is 1.5.4 and when I check for updates, it will tell me I'm up to date.
-
Check out Photo Supreme. It is a DAM, and a powerful one. It is not for editing (like Luminar, Capture One, On1, or Lightroom) nor is it a raw processor. It focusses exclusively on file management. Paid, not free. Available for Mac and Windows.
Also check out iMatch. I’ve never used it (not available on Mac) but it is very highly regarded as a full featured DAM for Windows.
Photo Mechanic’s strength is culling, not file management (although they’re getting into that). If you want a really great, very inexpensive, culling application, buy FastRawViewer. Wonderful little program!
-
If I understand your question correctly, the problem is that Affinity Photo handles channel editing much differently to the way that Photoshop does it. And, editing masks is particularly troublesome.
My understanding of this is that Photoshop allows the user to edit channels as if they were greyscale pixel layers. That means that all the pixel tools (all of the brushes, adjustments, and so forth) can be used directly on channels in the same way that they would when working on a traditional pixel layer. However, Affinity Photo is different, especially when it comes to editing the Alpha channel of a mask. Affinity will not let you directly apply all but a very few types of edits right to the alpha channel; AP treats the mask channel as alpha elements, only, and does not let you edit it the way you would a more typical greyscale pixel layer.
You can, however, add a Levels or Curves adjustment to a mask. Add a Curves layer, for instance, and drag it over the Mask thumbnail in the Layers panel so that you get the vertical blue bar. In the Curves dialog box, choose "Alpha" as the channel to be manipulated (rather than the default choice of "Master"). You can directly adjust the mask in this way, and it is effectively a non-destructive layer.
If you want to edit the Mask itself, however, in a more destructive fashion, you have to temporarily turn the mask into a pixel layer. In the Layers panel, right click on the mask thumbnail, then right click on the "Mask Alpha" in the Channels panel. Choose "Create Greyscale Layer" Drag this new layer up to the top of the stack. Now, add a Curves adjustment and adjust the greyscale layer as you'd like. Click the "Merge" button to change the pixel layer destructively. After that, right click on the pixel layer and choose "Rasterize to Mask." Drag this new mask into your photo, and replace the old mask.
The video below demonstrates this. I took a photo and created a "Darks 1" luminosity mask. (I kept all this in a Group to be able to compare at the end.) After duplicating the Group, I created a greyscale layer out of the duplicated mask and applied a Curves adjustment. I merged this, rasterized it to a mask, and dragged it into the duplicated Group.
Compare the New version and the Original version when I turn the Group on and off. Also, compare the masks when each is viewed in "Isolation Mode."
-
-
How convenient that your moon shot has an entirely black background! I opened your Wash DC photo, then “placed” the moon photo into a layer on top of it. I changed the blend mode to “Lighten” which got rid of all the black, but showed the moon. (I used a Curves adjustment on the moon layer to increase contrast, but that’s just me...). Obviously, since the moon is a separate layer, you can position it and resize it as you’d wish.
-
So, turns out I was wrong about that. I saved my shortcuts and then hit the "Clear All Shortcuts" button, and then the "Reset" button. This, I assume, brought me back to the default shortcuts pre-packaged with Affinity Photo. Lo and behold, the "D" shortcut for "Set Fill to Black and White" was there. So somewhere along the line, I must have gotten rid of it and subsequently thought it was never there in the first place. I was incorrect – the "D" shortcut is the default choice.
-
Jowday... I don't think that the "D" shortcut was ever the default. Although "X" would always toggle the Fill colors, I've always had to insert the "D" shortcut myself.
Also, once you've personalized your shortcuts with whatever extras you might like (for instance, you might have noticed that I entered my own shortcut for "Set Fill to 50% Gray"), click the "Save" button at top right to create an external file with all of your shortcuts. That way, if you ever have to "Reset" the application, or if a future update somehow gets rid of all your personalized stuff (they've done this at least once before) you can then click the "Load" button and retrieve all your shortcuts. You can also use the Save and Load buttons to move personalized shortcuts between the retail and beta versions to keep them in sync!
-
-
You can't use a "Fill Layer" here because Affinity Photo treats that as a vector object. You can't paint on a Fill Layer. Instead, add a new Pixel Layer (or just choose "New Layer" from the Layer menu) and then fill it with 50% grey. Set the blend mode to Overlay. If you paint with white, you will Dodge. If you paint with Black, you will Burn.
Suggestion: use a brush with 0% (or very, very low) hardness, and with 2-5% Flow. I usually keep the Opacity at 100%. The low Flow rate lets the strokes build up slowly, especially helpful if you're using a tablet.
I've attached a macro that you can import into your Library panel. This will create the layer for you.
- Tony Hawthorne and Edel Ayala
-
1
-
1
-
R C-R...
1) The second step, which I listed as "Select All" is indeed one which selects all layers. This step was created by choosing "Select All Layers" from the menu; it is listed as "Select All" in the macro, itself, and that is the reason for listing it the way I did.
2) I agree that naming layers in a macro requires that those names be (i) brief, and (ii) unique. I only named them the way I did as a means of explanation. Certainly, making shorter but still unique names is a laudable goal!
3) Many of the macros I have posted to the forum create an "effect." That is, they are macros for giving a photo a "Graphic Novel Effect" or an "Infrared Simulation" and so forth. Because of this, and because those effects require adding a number of layers to the original, I have started putting the additional layers inside a Group so that a user can turn the effect on and off with a single click. I simply employed that thinking when writing this particular macro.
Please post something new if you find a more elegant way of doing this. It's all about learning...
-
John... I always thought I was good at math, but I didn't catch that. Using DR=SR/DR and so forth certainly makes the typing easier. And the results are the same! Good catch.
FDK... If you have more than one layer, but all the layers above the image are adjustments, you could just put the pixel layer above the photo layer and do the Apply Image there. If you've got multiple layers with pixels on them, then doing a Merge Visible at the top of the stack would get you a summary photo to work on; put the filled pixel layer on top, just above the Merge Visible layer. That would work.
Murfee… Your method also seems to work. You must be better at math than all of us!
- John Rostron and Murfee
-
2
-
Good Morning, FDK...
I saw the same video and was also dismayed to find out that AP does not have a Divide blend mode. I did a little reading, and it turns out that you can come pretty close to duplicating this by using Apply Image. I even tried to make all this into a macro (to make it less cumbersome) but could not manage it. Anyway, here's the process:
1) Create a new Pixel layer above the image with the Color Cast.
2) Sample an area on the original image that is supposed to be white (I used the part of her dress that was used in the video.)
3) Fill the empty pixel layer with that color.
4) With the solid color pixel layer selected, choose Apply Image...
5) Drag the original image layer into the Apply Image dialog so that it is that layer you're applying.
6) At the bottom of the Apply Image dialog, check the Equations box, and enter the following:
DR = 1 / (DR/SR)
DG = 1 / (DG/SG)
DB = 1 / (DB/SB)
DA = SA
7) Hit the Apply button.
It's a cumbersome process, but it seems to work.
-
Alfred...
I'm aware that the iPad will only import categories, but I also know that R C-R is savvy enough to use the Macro panel on his desktop. Also, in and of itself, this macro doesn't actually accomplish anything. It merely sets the stage for additional editing. And, since the iPad can run macros but cannot create or edit them, importing this particular macro onto an iPad would simply be fruitless. In other words, there was a method to my madness...
-
Good morning, R C-R...
I've made this macro for you (a single macro, not a macro category, hence the Macro panel and not the Library panel) which can serve as the beginning of whatever else you'd like to do. The steps are:
1-Deselect [I usually put this at the top of any macro I do, so as not to confuse things]
2-Select All [selects all the layers]
3-Group [puts all the original layers in a group; they can be turned on/off with a single click]
4-Set Description "Original Layers in a Group" [give the group a unique, therefore choose-able, name]
5-Merge Visible
6-Set Description "Merge Visible Layer' [again, a unique name for possible later selection]
7-Set Current Selection [selects the layer named "Original Layers in a Group"]
8-Set Visibility [hides the group of original layers]
9-Set Current Selection [selects the layer named "Merge Visible Layer']
10-Group
11-Set Description "Additional Editing to be Done" [names the group uniquely so that it can be selected]
12-Set Current Selection [selects the Merge Visible layer [which is Child Number 1 in the dialog]I've constructed the macro this way because all of the additional editing can take place inside of a group. That way, any additional changes can be turned on and off with a single click, and can be done in a macro (since the group that contains the additional edits has a unique name). Obviously, you can recreate the macro and change the names of the layers and the groups as you wish!
Let me know what you think...
-
You might get some success using this macro, which I've linked below. It is called "Graphic Novel Effect" and creates a treatment similar to the image you posted. As an example, I downloaded a photo (from Unsplash), desaturated it by 85%, and applied the Graphic Novel macro. I tweaked the settings a bit, but here's the result:
-
When your photo has a fairly wide dynamic range (which is common for landscapes) I have found that first "squeezing" the histogram in from the sides is needed. Basically, you want to bring the highlights down and make them darker, and bring the shadows up to make them lighter. You can do this most easily with the Shadows and Highlights sliders. Bring the Highlights all the way down and bring the Shadows up (but more gently, since this can make your photo really awful if you overdo it). This results in a terrible looking photo, since it is flat, drab, and unappealing. However, you can re-introduce contrast with (i) the Tones curve; (ii) the Brightness slider; and (iii) the Contrast slider. I've attached a screenshot of what I've done to your Raw file. (I also warmed up the photo, which I thought was way too blue.) Obviously, more editing can be done after you hit the Develop button.
-
Max...
You can’t copy the alpha channel directly, which is what you’re hoping for, right? But you can do this in a different way.
1) In your first adjustment layer, use the black and white brushes to create a mask (as usual).
2) With the adjustment layer selected, open the Channels panel. Don’t worry about the “composite” channels; look for the Layer channel. It will be named for the adjustment. Click and hold on the 3 dots to the right. From the dropdown menu, choose Create Spare Channel. You’ll see a new channel at the bottom of the list.
3) Go back the the Layers panel and create your second adjustment layer. Leave the second adjustment layer selected.
4) Open the Channels panel. Find the Spare Channel you just created. Click the 3 dots and select Load to <adjustment name> Alpha. Your first adjustment layer’s mask (i.e., its alpha channel) will be copied into the second adjustment layer.
-
OK, I'm making an assumption here: you're working in Non-Separated Mode (that is, either you're in Windows or on a Mac with "Separated Mode" on the Window menu NOT checked). When this is the case, your graphic will normally expand to fit the available space. If you're judging the "jaggies" by the display on the screen, the DPI of your document really doesn't matter; what matters is the number of pixels you're dealing with. A quick way to evaluate this is to check the top of the Toolbar, where you should see the name of your document and a percentage. That percentage represents how much magnification has been applied to your image to have it fill the workspace. The higher that magnification is, the easier it will be to see the jaggies that result from individual pixels. DPI really only applies once you print your document onto a physical medium (like paper).
The difference between screen resolution and print resolution is a long story - you can search this forum and come up with 1000's of words on the subject. However, if your image is being magnified by greater than 100% on screen then those jagged edges will start to become obvious; the greater the magnification, the more obvious the jagged edges become.
Here is an image created on a 200x200 pixel canvas:
Here is an equivalent image, this time created on a 2000x2000 pixel canvas:
The reason that the first one is "jaggy" and the second one isn't is simply because the number of pixels in the second one is so much higher. (By the way, the dpi on both documents was set at 300 dpi. When displayed on screen, you can see that this setting really doesn't matter.)
-
Here's a quickly updated version of the macro. This one is exactly the same, except that it will allow you to have multiple layers prior to using the macro. So, you can apply adjustments, filters, etc. to the image before you use the macro to resize and add the white background.
-
Here's a macro for you. Please note a few things:
1) You've got to start with a document that is 840x1300, as you described. It can be smaller than that (really, anything less than 1500x1500 would work) but the macros don't scale proportionately. If you resize the canvas or the document to a given measurement when you create the macro, those exact numbers are stored.
2) I have not added a Fill Layer, because I don't believe it's possible to specify a color for the Fill Layer when recording the macro. Instead, I added a pixel layer and used the Fill… command to specify that the layer be filled with white.
3) The Copy and Paste operations are not necessary. Instead, since the white pixel layer ends up on top, I have used the "Move Back One" command on the Arrange menu to move the white layer below the pixel layer.
4) All this assumes that you're starting with 1 layer, which contains the image. If you have added additional layers (of any type) before applying the macro, it won't give you the desired result.
5) This is a single macro file (.afmacro) not a macros category (.afmacros), so it must be imported into the Macro panel, not into the Library panel. If you want to keep it, move it into the Library into a category of your choosing.
-
No harm, no foul, Walt!
-
Glad to hear it. I was just now responding to Walt about Left and Right Studios being Mac only, but I’m glad to hear that it seems that’s not the case. Glad you’re up and running!
-
I would try two things, in order:
1) On the Studio submenu, make sure that both the Left Studio and the Right Studio are shown, not hidden.
2) If they are, try choosing Reset Studio, also from that submenu.
-
Good luck with it, Paul. Welcome aboard!
Photo Management software
in Pre-V2 Archive of Affinity on Desktop Questions (macOS and Windows)
Posted
I can only speak to Photo Supreme, which is the DAM that I am using. If you add the ".afphoto" extension to its Preferences, it can handle Affinity Photo files quite nicely. For display, it uses the embedded preview in the .afphoto file. For metadata, it will create an .xmp sidecar. The only "workaround" it has to employ is that it cannot use its embedded Viewer to look at an .afphoto file - for that, it will launch the Affinity Photo app. I have had absolutely no issues using Affinity Photo files inside of Photo Supreme.