smadell

Absolutely agreed. Anyone with experience or knowledge out there? Would really love to hear your input!

The link and quote are appreciated, v_kyr. I am a big fan of the Affinity line, and have committed to them. Nevertheless, Ash Hewson’s comments are a bit hyperbolic (although appropriate for that particular venue). I’m hoping that a real-world user can comment on the benefits that accrue from an upgraded GPU. Over-arching statements about “insane” power aside, just what specific operations are going to get noticeably faster if I get a more powerful GPU? As I said, this is not a financial question: I suppose I am in the enviable position of being able to afford the upgrade. I’m really not asking IF the upgraded GPU will make things faster; I’m asking WHICH specific things will get faster. Any help will be truly appreciated!

Thank you for the response, DWright. As to the first question, though, which operations (specifically) will be sped up by a more capable graphics card? Although it’s not, strictly speaking, a financial question, it would be helpful to know what I’d be getting if and when I purchase an upgraded GPU.

Sometime in the next 6 months, I expect to purchase a new iMac. I'm currently running a late-2015 model, and most of my work is done in Affinity Photo (even though I own Designer and Publisher also). Financial considerations aside, what benefit(s) should I see if I choose the upgraded GPU processor instead of the standard one? Specifically, which operations are GPU intensive and will I see any noticeable improvements with a more powerful GPU? Also, on a related note, how stable is "Metal" processing these days? As soon as it was available in Preferences, I turned it on. But, it seemed a bit buggy and I got (I think) better performance when it was switched off. What's the current take on that? Thanks in advance.

It's way easier than that. If you have a pixel layer and an associated mask (as a child layer) just select the layer with the Move tool and either check or un-check the "Lock Children" box in the Context Toolbar. If the checkbox is NOT checked, then the mask will transform along with the layer; if the checkbox IS checked, then the child layer (the mask) will stay the same when you transform the parent layer (the pixel layer).

I'm pretty sure I know exactly what you're after. I think the problem you're facing is that Photoshop (as I understand it) treats masks, and indeed all channels, as greyscale layers when they're being edited. So, the brushes, adjustments, etc. tend to work just as they would if you were editing a regular pixel layer. Affinity Photo, on the other hand, treats masks as they truly are – alpha channels, with no color whatsoever. Trying to edit them as if they are pixel layers just doesn't work. (Wish it would, but that's another story.) The answer to do what you're after is a workaround. Instead of making a mask out of, say, the blue channel, start by making the blue channel into a Greyscale layer. This will create a greyscale pixel layer in the Layers stack, which you can edit like the pixel layer it is. Take your black or white brush, set the blend mode to Overlay, and have at it. Once you've got your purely black and white layer (which is, I assume, what you're after) choose Rasterize to Mask by right-clicking the layer in the Layers panel, or by choosing it from the Layer menu. Drag the mask that results into the proper layer.

A suggestion and a comment: 1) Try clicking the little green circle (upper left) as this might reveal the menu bar. 2) That's quite a photo!

Glad that everyone is finding these helpful. I’ve learned so much in the past few years, largely because of this Forum. It feels good to give something back.

You've inadvertantly discovered the clipping-vs-masking question, and when it does (and doesn't) matter. Check out this video for the "official explanation" from Affinity's James Ritson:

The easiest way I can think of is by using Luminosity masking, or by fiddling with the Blend Options directly. In brief, you can take your dark-sky-and-stars layer, duplicate it, and use Blend Options (click the Gear icon at the top of the Layers panel) to limit each of these layers to the dark areas or the light areas, respectively.

Thanks, Walt. Good to know.

Correct me if I’m wrong, guys. But, the Snapping Candidate lines only appear when the Move tool is active. Since I often (usually) like to have Snapping ON, just activating the Hand tool (you can just hit “H” on the keyboard) makes the snapping candidate lines go away.

Frank... If you want to use the selection tool, just make a selection and then create a mask. 1F3D2CAB-5BF3-40BA-B650-CF0B1E508BE2.MOV

Although you can’t literally crop a single layer, you can effectively do the same thing by clipping the layer to a vector shape. Create a shape (such as the rectangle I used in the screenshot below) and drag the layer into the shape, so that it becomes a child of the shape.

In the Context Toolbar (under the main Toolbar, but above the image) you need to set the Source to “Current Layer and Below.” You are trying to use the Healing Brush tool on an empty pixel layer, which is a good way to do this non-destructively, but you need your source to include the layers below to get anything to work.

In fact, the Nikon D7000 was first sold in 2010, but the D3300 did not hit the shelves until 2014. If you haven't upgraded your MacBook's OS since you bought it (maybe?) your 2012 operating system couldn't possibly recognize the newer camera's Raw files.

Based on the appearance of your Dock and the old icon for iTunes, I'm guessing that you're using an older version of the Mac OS. Is it possible that this older version does not recognize raw files from one of your cameras?

To make these edits even more concise, there’s no real need to duplicate any portion of the original pixel layer. In the first case, you can make the selection on the Background and simply add an HSL adjustment. The selection will mask the effect, and you can further refine its effect by limiting the color range it acts on. In the second case, you can make the selection of the hands on the Background, then add a levels adjustment. Don’t move any of the sliders at all - just set the Levels adjustment to Screen and adjust the opacity as desired. These refinements are a little “cleaner,” and probably result in somewhat smaller file sizes too.

I posted this a few days ago...

In my experience, macros don't always play well with child layers. The only way I've been consistently able to work with layers that end up as children of another layer is to i) first create the new layer (pixel, adjustment, filter, etc.) at the "root level" of the layer stack (that is, set your Assistant to add an adjustment as a new layer rather than as a child layer); ii) do what you want with that layer (rename, set parameters, etc); then iii) use the "Move Inside" command to place the layer as a child of the layer directly below it. Sometimes, you can choose a child layer by first choosing the parent layer and then "going inside" the nested layers. But this does not seem to work reliably, and is often the source of immediate crashes when I am writing macros.

Here's 2 ways that I did (rough job) just now: First, make a rough selection of the hands and Duplicate to a new layer. Use the HSL tool to isolate the skin color. Then, I increased saturation a bit and increased luminosity a bit as well. Second, I did a selection (followed by a refine selection and a minimal feather) to choose the hands, duplicated to a new layer, and set that layer's blend mode to Screen. Opacity down to 40% in this case.

I made 2 little videos, one for Creating a New Mask and the second for Editing an Existing Mask. Sometimes watching the process helps it make more sense. So... 1) Creating a New Mask Create a Mask.m4v 2) Editing an Existing Mask Edit a Mask.m4v

Hilltop... Without going too deep into the weeds, creating and editing the masks are done outside of the original photo, and don't actually mask the photo itself while you're working; they mask the red overlay layers. Each portion (the 2 create and the 2 edit macros) come in two steps, each; the first is to set up the mask for creating (or editing) and the second is to put it into position. (i.e., click step 1 to set up a mask, then click step 2 once you've completed it; click step 3 if you want to edit a mask, then click step 4 once you've finished your editing.) I guess the take-home message is that it's not necessary to look at the structure too carefully; just use the masks as if they were in their traditional place and form.

Use either of these solutions: 1) In the Assistant, choose “Add adjustment as a new layer” instead of as a child layer; or 2) After deselecting, choose “Deselect Layers” from the Select menu. This will assure that any new layer is placed on the top of the stack.

I am attaching a set of macros that allow the creation and editing of layer masks using a red overlay to assist in the process. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Creating masks in Affinity Photo is fairly easy. Either create a new Mask layer and paint on it, or use the Selection tools to select the appropriate area and then create the mask to incorporate the selection. The absence of a red overlay when creating an initial mask can be overcome by using the Quick Mask tool, which allows the user to create a selection with the visual aid of a red overlay. Once the Quick Mask view has done its thing, (i) turn the Quick Mask off; and (ii) create the new mask layer. Editing an existing mask is less straightforward. In order to edit a mask, you can paint in black, white, or grey while the mask layer is selected. Or, you can look at the mask in "isolation mode" to do your painting. In the first case, you don't get any type of red overlay to indicate what's masked and what's not; in the second case, you can't see the image being masked in order to tell where your mask needs editing. Up until now, there has not been a good workaround. This set me thinking... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I am attaching a set of macros called Create/Edit Masks with Red Overlay. This is a set of 4 macros inside a macro category (and, therefore, import it through the Library panel). The first two are for creating masks utilizing a red overlay. They are an alternative to using Quick Mask to create a selection and then use that selection to create a mask. More importantly, however, the last two macros are for editing an existing mask with the benefit of a red overlay, being able to visualize the image being masked underneath. [Note: these macros will not create, and will not adequately edit, vector based masks. They are exclusively for use on pixel based masks.] Here are step by step directions for using the macros. I will use a photo of the USS Midway in my examples. 1) Create Mask with Red Overlay - Set Up Click on the first macro. This will create an empty mask layer (one which starts entirely black) embedded in a group. The various other layers in the group provide the red overlay - leave them alone. Paint with white or black (just as you would with the Quick Mask) in order to reveal or conceal areas of the underlying photo. The image below shows a mask with the body of the ship painted in white, and the rest of the mask black. 2) Create Mask with Red Overlay - Finalize Once you have created the mask as you might like it, click the second macro. This will place the newly created mask at the top of the layer stack, and it will be named "Mask - Drag to Desired Position." Obviously, you should position the new mask as you would like. The image below shows the result of the second macro, before the mask is repositioned. 3) Edit Mask with Red Overlay - Set Up Here's where the fun starts. You need to have a mask that you want to edit, and it needs to be selected. The mask should be a child of the pixel or image layer, and should not be further nested. (In other words, it should be a child of the image, but not a grandchild.) Click on the third macro. Your selected macro will be hidden and a copy of it will be placed into a group that sits above the appropriate image. The macro copy is named "TemporaryMaskForEditing." Edit that mask using black or white paint, just as you would any other mask. The difference here is that all this is constructed to allow you to see the photo while you are editing the mask. Just as in the Quick Mask setup, the white portions of the mask will reveal the photo below normally but the black portions of the mask will also show the photo, but covered with a red overlay. The image below is the immediate result of clicking the third macro. And, the next image shows an edited mask after using black and white paint on the mask layer. 4) Edit Mask with Red Overlay - Finalize Click on the fourth macro with the edited mask selected. The edited mask will be placed as a child in the photo, the old mask will still be there but remains invisible, and all the other stuff is deleted. The image below shows the result of the 4th macro. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No guarantees are made, and there are certainly some scenarios where this might not work. But, if it fulfills a need for you, it's yours. Create:Edit Masks with Red Overlay.afmacros