smadell

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.

Adding grain to a photo is a nice way to emulate vintage images, especially older black and white photos. It has always bothered me a bit that Affinity Photo does not include a mechanism to introduce grain, other than to use the “Add Noise” filter. While adding noise is nice, it adds such a fine amount of variation that it is often quite literally unnoticeable.
I have admired the Film Grain effect that is available in other software, such as Nik’s Silver Efex. These filters can often vary grain size and intensity; sometimes grain can be added to shadows, midtones, and highlights in differing amounts.
What I’ve attached is an .afmacros file called Film Grain. This is a macros Category and should be imported into the Library panel. It includes two macros. The first is called Add Film Grain - simple. It allows the user to add grain with 2 parameters – intensity and size.
Grain - Intensity
The grain intensity defaults to 100%, but can be set to any value between 0 and 100. At 0% intensity, the grain effectively disappears. To understand intensity, think “contrast.”
Grain - Size
The size slider accepts values between 0 and 1, with the default being 0.2. The appropriate value will differ based on the image being treated, and the same perceived size might need higher values when the overall dimensions of the image are larger. Also note that values above 0.8 are rounded down to 0.8 (and this forms an effective upper limit to the slider). This is done primarily because the math breaks down at higher values.
The second macro is called Add Film Grain - by tonal range. It includes the same intensity and size parameters, but also lets the user set opacity levels for highlights, midtones, and shadows separately.
Grain Opacity - Highlights, Midtones, and Shadows
There are three separate sliders for highlights, midtones, and shadows respectively. Each defaults to 100%, but can be set to values between 0 and 100. While the “simple” macro creates a single Film Grain layer, the “tonal range” version creates a group containing 3 layers, one each for the three tonal ranges. The Grain Opacity sliders simply vary the opacity of the corresponding layers within that group.
Finishing Touches
When each of the macros finishes, the Blend Range for the result (the Film Grain layer in the case of the “simple” macro, and the Group in the case of the “tonal range” macro) is set to diminish the effect of the grain on the highlights slightly. This is an aesthetic choice on my part, and I think you will agree. However, you can set the Blend Range to anything you might like, as desired.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
For most users, the “simple” macro will be enough. It lets the editor vary the Intensity of the grain and also the Size. I have always liked adding grain that was a bit larger, because it becomes more noticeable.
For other users, the “tonal range” macro will allow you to add some additional nuance to the grain, by letting you emphasize grain in the shadows, midtones and highlights. Do this by first setting a global Intensity and Size, and then adjusting the opacity of the 3 tone ranges as desired.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Here are samples of the two macros, along with the settings as applied. The differences between the two results is quite subtle, but might be worth the effort in some cases.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
As with all the macros I have posted, I have tested these on one computer under a limited number of conditions. I cannot guarantee anything, but I have no reason to think they will not work for you just as they have for me. The macros are free, with the suggestion to “pay it forward.” As you become more proficient, be sure to share your experience and your work with others.
By the way, happy holidays to everyone. Here’s hoping that 2021 is a more positive, uplifting year than 2020. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to ring in 2022 in a crowd without any masks!
Film Grain.afmacros

Attached is a Tutorial on Editing Skin Tones in Affinity Photo. The original document was created in Affinity Publisher and exported to PDF.
The emphasis is on getting accurate, natural looking skin tones, assisted by the numbers...Vectorscope, HSL and CMYK samplers in the Info Panel... to help the user stay on track and defeat "eye adaptation". Our eyes acclimate to our monitor, and the longer we stare at our monitors, the "better" our colors appear (even if they are way off). 
I hope you find the tutorial clear and helpful. 
Editing Skin Tones in Affinity Photo.pdf

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

I am attaching a macro category called “Reticulated Gradient Map” which can be used for color grading or for creating an artistic rendition of a photograph. The look was inspired by a recently viewed YouTube video on the Texturelabs channel in which an image was posterized and gradient mapped, but with a specific type of grain applied to the borders of the colors. The original video can be found here.
The effect relied on a filter found in Photoshop’s Filter Gallery called “Reticulation”. Although the Reticulation filter is not available in Affinity Photo, this macro duplicates the effect fairly reliably.
Here is a before and after image, along with the User Dialog settings used during the image’s creation.

The macro creates a number of adjustments and other layers inside a Group called Reticulated Color Grade. Because the effect is entirely contained inside the group, the effect can be turned on and off by showing/hiding the enclosing group. Also, the effect is entirely non-destructive (with one exception, discussed below) and will respond immediately to any additional edits made to the original image.

I have also created a PDF (also attached to this post) with specific instructions for using this macro. However, in brief, invoking the macro will set up the Layers stack (as above) and present a dialog to the user for some initial settings. You will be asked to set the following:
1) Adjust Reticular Noise Size (destructive)
The “Reticulation Noise” layer is a pixel layer in which a reticulated pattern of noise is applied. The macro invokes an “Equations” filter to increase or decrease the size of the noise. The default value is 0.8, and the slider will accept values between 0 and 1 (although anything above 0.8 is capped at that value, since the math falls apart above that value). In general, the default setting results in the largest reticular noise available, but the noise can be decreased in size by setting the slider to smaller values.
2) Adjust Reticular Noise Opacity
This slider affects the opacity of the “Reticulation Noise” layer. The overall effect is that, at lower values, the graininess of the reticulation is held closer and closer to the borders between colors. The default value is 20% and the slider will accept values between 0% and 100%. In general, keeping the value to smaller numbers is usually going to be more visually pleasing.
3) Distribute Tones
This slider affects the Gamma slider in a Levels adjustment. Because the Levels adjustment is applied prior to the Gradient Map, shifting the slider to the left or the right will shift the colors toward the lighter or darker tones respectively. Play with this a bit, watching for the appearance or disappearance of colors mapped to whites and blacks.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
The first setting, in which the “size” of the noise is adjusted, is a destructive change. It cannot be edited once the macro has been finalized. This particular slider should be set carefully. However, other values can be edited afterward. I would suggest the following edits after the macro has been allowed to complete.
1) Open the Distribute Tones layer. This is a Levels adjustment, and sits inside of the “Monochrome Group.” I have found it to be helpful to move the Black Level and White Level sliders inward so as to meet the left and right borders of the histogram. Also, you can adjust the Gamma slider so as to shift the gradient mapped colors toward the lighter and darker values.

2) Select the Reticulation Noise layer and fine tune the Opacity of that layer. You will find that adjusting the opacity of the layer will shift how much the graininess of the reticulation involves the individual colors. In general, keeping the Opacity low will keep the reticulation noise closer to the borders between the individual colors.

3) The macro uses a Gradient Map that uses purple and orange colors for its default. Obviously, you can change this (and you probably will want to!) Open the Gradient Map Adjustment layer and change the colors as you’d like. Using an adjustment preset will make this easier, but those presets are up to you. Be aware that the macro sets the Posterize adjustment to 5 levels, and the Gradient Map has stops at 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%. This means that the end result will give 5 posterized colors, as represented by the colors chosen for those stops.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
The attached macro category should be imported into the Library panel, using the “hamburger menu” at the top right corner of the panel. The macro was created in Affinity Photo 2, and will not be compatible with version 1. Also, once the macro category is imported, you can drag the macro to any other category you already have set up. (I have placed the macro inside a Category that I created called “Color Grading” but you can set up your categories as you would like.)
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
As with all of the macros that I have submitted please remember that I am one person working with one computer. I have tested the macro in a fairly limited fashion, and it works well for me. I believe that the macro functions as stated, but of course I cannot make any guarantees.
On the other hand, if you like the macro you should keep it and enjoy it. It is free to use for personal and/or commercial work, and you do not need to credit me in any way. My only requests are these: (i) please post a response in this Forum topic to let me know that you are using the macro and (hopefully) enjoying it; and (ii) please remember to “pay it forward” by contributing to the forum in any way you can. It is by sharing your experience and your expertise that we all improve our skills and our enjoyment.
Reticulated Gradient Map.afmacros Using the Reticulated Gradient Map Macro.pdf

Best of luck with those windmills, Mr. Quixote.

I have always tried not to get sucked into these types of discussions, since they are usually about as fruitful as arguing politics or religion. But, I’m a little tired tonight and I thought I’d throw my 2 cents in. William, your notion that you should be paid for merely suggesting a software feature is beyond ludicrous. I apologize if I am being rude, but arguing the fine points of the difficulty in getting paid for making a suggestion is pedantry in the extreme. The whole nature of making a suggestion is being charitable (unless you are a paid consultant, and I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you are not).
Now I have a suggestion. I think you should continue to make a series of long-winded and silly posts throughout the forum and follow up with post after post trying to decide how many angels can dance on the head of your particular pins. It would seem to me that you have two choices - you can (1) continue down the road you’ve been on for several years now (and, or course, pay me handsomely for making the suggestion), or (2) just stop (and save your money).

Best of luck with those windmills, Mr. Quixote.

I have always tried not to get sucked into these types of discussions, since they are usually about as fruitful as arguing politics or religion. But, I’m a little tired tonight and I thought I’d throw my 2 cents in. William, your notion that you should be paid for merely suggesting a software feature is beyond ludicrous. I apologize if I am being rude, but arguing the fine points of the difficulty in getting paid for making a suggestion is pedantry in the extreme. The whole nature of making a suggestion is being charitable (unless you are a paid consultant, and I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you are not).
Now I have a suggestion. I think you should continue to make a series of long-winded and silly posts throughout the forum and follow up with post after post trying to decide how many angels can dance on the head of your particular pins. It would seem to me that you have two choices - you can (1) continue down the road you’ve been on for several years now (and, or course, pay me handsomely for making the suggestion), or (2) just stop (and save your money).

I have always tried not to get sucked into these types of discussions, since they are usually about as fruitful as arguing politics or religion. But, I’m a little tired tonight and I thought I’d throw my 2 cents in. William, your notion that you should be paid for merely suggesting a software feature is beyond ludicrous. I apologize if I am being rude, but arguing the fine points of the difficulty in getting paid for making a suggestion is pedantry in the extreme. The whole nature of making a suggestion is being charitable (unless you are a paid consultant, and I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you are not).
Now I have a suggestion. I think you should continue to make a series of long-winded and silly posts throughout the forum and follow up with post after post trying to decide how many angels can dance on the head of your particular pins. It would seem to me that you have two choices - you can (1) continue down the road you’ve been on for several years now (and, or course, pay me handsomely for making the suggestion), or (2) just stop (and save your money).

I have always tried not to get sucked into these types of discussions, since they are usually about as fruitful as arguing politics or religion. But, I’m a little tired tonight and I thought I’d throw my 2 cents in. William, your notion that you should be paid for merely suggesting a software feature is beyond ludicrous. I apologize if I am being rude, but arguing the fine points of the difficulty in getting paid for making a suggestion is pedantry in the extreme. The whole nature of making a suggestion is being charitable (unless you are a paid consultant, and I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you are not).
Now I have a suggestion. I think you should continue to make a series of long-winded and silly posts throughout the forum and follow up with post after post trying to decide how many angels can dance on the head of your particular pins. It would seem to me that you have two choices - you can (1) continue down the road you’ve been on for several years now (and, or course, pay me handsomely for making the suggestion), or (2) just stop (and save your money).

I suppose so, @R C-R. May the Schwartz be with you.

I suppose so, @R C-R. May the Schwartz be with you.

I have always tried not to get sucked into these types of discussions, since they are usually about as fruitful as arguing politics or religion. But, I’m a little tired tonight and I thought I’d throw my 2 cents in. William, your notion that you should be paid for merely suggesting a software feature is beyond ludicrous. I apologize if I am being rude, but arguing the fine points of the difficulty in getting paid for making a suggestion is pedantry in the extreme. The whole nature of making a suggestion is being charitable (unless you are a paid consultant, and I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you are not).
Now I have a suggestion. I think you should continue to make a series of long-winded and silly posts throughout the forum and follow up with post after post trying to decide how many angels can dance on the head of your particular pins. It would seem to me that you have two choices - you can (1) continue down the road you’ve been on for several years now (and, or course, pay me handsomely for making the suggestion), or (2) just stop (and save your money).

This announcement was a shock. While Version 2 was oversold, and the recent slow pace of bug fixes and limited feature updates is concerning, I understand there was a lot of V2 under-the-hood work. Regardless, we were more than happy to pay for the Version 2 ‘all options’ package, even though we don’t (at the moment) run Windows machines and the iPad apps remain something to be explored. The value from V1 was so great that buying version two was both a V1 'thank you’ and a V2 encouragement.
The new ownership compels us to examine of our continued use of Affinity software.
Background
We are a small publishing operation creating image-rich print and multi-media ebooks, based in regional Victoria.
We used PageMaker and then the Adobe Creative Suite from its inception until it went subscription. It was not cheap software – $AU600 to $AU800 a seat with half-price updates that, particularly toward the end, were of diminishing worth. We always had the option to skip an update, over the nine years we probably skipped half – skipping more often towards the end. The Australian pricing was at times up to twice that Adobe charged in the US after allowing for the $AUD/$USD exchange rate. It was very expensive software, but as we purchased outright we could partially control the cost. When the subscription ‘model’ was introduced it effectively doubled our already high costs (again charged at much higher prices than to US users), and the moment we stopped paying we would have lost access to our files.
We limped on with CS6 for publishing and drawing while we pivoted photo processing to Apple’s Aperture – based on this being flagship software from a major corporation. This prove to be a major mistake. We also started producing multi-media ePub projects in Apple’s iBooks Author. Another mistake.
Affinity journey
As CS6 faltered, we waited impatiently for Affinity Publisher for our print-based work, taking part in the beta testing. The moment it launched we moved some projects across, even though key features were missing (compared to In-Design) and there were strange bugs. The killer aspect for us was/is the seamless integration of the three apps. This more than compensated for missing functions and ‘managing’ bugs.
When Apple abandoned Aperture we moved to Photo. The first in our string of abandoned software experiences.
For ePub we are still, just, managing to use iBooks Author but expect that ability to ‘break’ any day. We were hoping Publisher would have a robust ePub capability before that final break.
Continue or abandon
The sale is forcing us to review the place for Affinity in our workflows.
We need software longevity. It is not uncommon for us to revisit projects across a decade. We have just spent weeks updating a project from 2014 where the hundreds of photos processed in Apple’s Aperture have to be redone. So my overriding concern is: what are the odds that the Affinity apps will still be viable in 2034?
Our other requirement is perpetual licence software we can to continue to use.
Unfortunately, ‘wait and see’ isn’t a option as we are due to begin several major projects. Do we continue to pour time, effort and capital into projects based on Affinity software or do we look for alternatives now?
This is a summary of our thinking.
Adobe takeover
One of the concerns raised in this thread is the potential for Adobe to buy Canva – given the mood and direction of Australian competition regulators I think this is so unlikely that it does not figure in my calculations.
VC cash grab leading to enshitification
Two of the three Canva founders are on record as holding 18 per cent of the company each, I guess the third also holds 18 per cent – that would give the three a controlling holding. For short-term VCs an IPO allows them to cash out, so there is a path for control to remain with the founders – parties to the assurances we are receiving today – while VCs can grab their cash.
Institutional shareholders
Two of Canva’s institutional shareholders are Australian ‘industry’ superannuation funds that together manage $250 billion of investments. We have two types of super funds – the commercial ‘for profits’ run by financial institutions etc. who make profits for their owners (and generally lower returns for their member) and ‘non-profit’ – the much larger group – of ‘Industry’ funds run only to benefit their members, often union-controlled, and generally long-term ‘ethical’ investors. That Canva’s institutional shareholders are in the second group provides some comfort.
Entrepreneurs with social conscious
Australia has a small group of billionaire entrepreneurial software developers with strong public conscious. Reports suggesting the Canva founders fall into this group – the pack leader is Atlassian co-founder Mike  Cannon-Brooks, a major driver of large renewable energy projects.
Serif’s fate
A few posts have pointed out that Canva acquired Pixabay and Pexels five years ago to support their offering. Both continue to operate as they had pre-acquisition – as stand-alone organisations with previous management – while providing that support to the main Canva product. It is not a leap to see Serif treated this way as the professional offerings would not make sense being folded into the current Canva 'anyone can design' offering.
The driver for Canva is adding ‘professional’ capabilities. In buying Serif, Canva has paid a lot for that capability. Canva senior management are very astute – they have built a $26 billion business from scratch. Dismantling or compromising Affinity software is not an ‘astute’ path, while strengthening it is. And knowing that a very large part of the attraction to Affinity users is perpetual licences, why would you change this major selling point over Adobe?
However, offering AI or cloud-based services requires a subscription to cover the ongoing costs – the template for that is Luminar Neo – you can by perpetual licences with optional AI-based ‘add ons’ with a subscription.
Much of the angst in this thread is around assurances being given by people who are/will not be in a position to deliver/honour those assurances. On reflection, I think there is a reasonable chance those people will remain in positions where they can honour those assurances for several years beyond an IPO.
Our decision
Making the wrong choice – stay or go – will have a substantial financial and resource impact on our business/operation. It is not a decision to make lightly.
For the moment that decision is to delay the major projects until 2.5 is released, see if there is an improvement in bug fixes and ePub features. If so, we will tentatively begin one of our major projects on Affinity software and remain watchful until Version 3.
If not, the search for alternatives will begin.
There are paths for this to be a net positive for Affinity, and we who use the software. I really hope this is the outcome.

To address some of what is being said on this thread...
Firstly to be clear I'm not a founder, but have been with the company for 25 years. I'm officially appointed as Managing Director of the company, but also use CEO as my title as that is my role in terms of how other countries would view it.
Both Canva and us have made 100% clear we are committing to perpetual licences always being available. That will include V3 or any other future major upgrade of our apps which are released. What's more I will say with Canva's backing we are not under the same financial pressure we would have been to release a V3 anytime soon, meaning those of you using V2 will actually benefit from more features as free updates which may previously have been held back for a V3 if that makes sense. This is of great benefit from an engineering standpoint too as we are far better testing and releasing features in smaller chunks than saving them up to package up as a sellable upgrade. 
https://www.canva.com/newsroom/news/affinity-canva-pledge/
https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/27/24113423/affinity-canva-acquisition-pledge-license-price-subscription
https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/press/newsroom/affinity-and-canva-pledge/
As we have made clear there will at some point be a subscription option also which people can take if they choose to. I'm sure there will be additional benefits to that subscription in the future such as asset and document sync, sharing and collaboration and other things which naturally require a subscription as they are features which incur ongoing cost. It may also include other things which can be leveraged with a Canva subscription such as greater stock libraries of images, graphics and fonts. Hopefully that would just be considered reasonable and understandable. There will certainly not be any cynical cutting down of features or limitation of ongoing support in our existing apps just to force a subscription play.
I understand examples of previous acquisitions can make some of you fearful, but they are just historic examples - it has no bearing on what will happen in this case and we are genuinely doing something here which is very different and special. Everything I said on Tuesday, and what both Canva and us pledged yesterday, is 100% true and we are going to stand by it. That includes keeping our entire team here with no layoffs, and continuing to be based in Nottingham. 
If you want to believe this or not is up to you, I'm not sure what more we can say at this point to convince those who doubt it. We'll deliver on this over the coming months and years so whatever is being said right now I know it's going to be all good and assuming you are still using Affinity apps you will be happy with how they have developed and that we have continued to be fair and inclusive with our pricing.
Also to follow on from Patricks point - I can take some of the personal attacks on me, but I have to say some of the conduct on this thread with some of you being very quick to attack other community members just because they hold different opinions is really disheartening to see. You can absolutely give your opinion on this deal for sure, and we are happy to leave this as an open forum within reason, but that does mean being courteous to other forum members and not just repeating the same points over and over.
Thanks,
Ash
 

This is the most balanced take I've seen in this thread - thanks 👍

Hi, @itsRachel. I doubt that a change in color profile will solve anything for you. Your scanner has produced a “flat” result - one with very little contrast. This can be addressed easily in Affinity Photo. I downloaded your attached JPG (in the first post) and it only took a few minutes to get a result that looks more like the original photo. (And this is on my iPad, using my sausage fingers, only!) I applied 4 layers - 2 adjustments and 2 live filters (and only to the scanned photo portion, hence the masks that you can see in the Layers panel). A screenshot is attached. No change in color profile at any point.

With photos like this, I’ve found (usually)that getting rid of a color cast using the “Divide Fill” method works best. Sometimes, a simple White Balance adjustment just doesn’t seem to cooperate. I downloaded your image (in the first post) and put a white Fill layer above it, setting the Blend mode to Divide. I clicked on an area that should be white (you’ll see I placed a small red circle on an area of snow in the mountains). I’ve posted the result below - the change is subtle, but definitely a bit less blue. Also, here’s a link to a good YouTube video by Robin Whalley that goes over the technique.

 
 

With photos like this, I’ve found (usually)that getting rid of a color cast using the “Divide Fill” method works best. Sometimes, a simple White Balance adjustment just doesn’t seem to cooperate. I downloaded your image (in the first post) and put a white Fill layer above it, setting the Blend mode to Divide. I clicked on an area that should be white (you’ll see I placed a small red circle on an area of snow in the mountains). I’ve posted the result below - the change is subtle, but definitely a bit less blue. Also, here’s a link to a good YouTube video by Robin Whalley that goes over the technique.

 
 

At one point, I had created my own version of a sepia effect as a macro. But, I later found a website by James Ritson (one of the staff at Serif, and the creator of most of the official Affinity Photo tutorials): https://jamesritson.co.uk/
If you visit the web page, and click in the "Resources Page" link at the top, James has a large number of downloadable files. Among these is a free collection of macros called "JR Filter Gallery Macros v4". This group of macros contains one called "Sepia Effect" and it is a great implementation of sepia coloration. It was much better than what I had created on my own, and it now serves as my go-to if I ever need a sepia color grade.
Adding a vignette and/or a paper texture is still an easy addition. But, the coloration provided by James' macro is superb. (Plus, you can play with all the other macros in the set, and some of them are also quite remarkable.)
Here's a before and after, using a photo from Front Street in Bermuda:

@Andrew Leiataua Yet another possibility. I like some of the other posted versions better, especially the treatment of the shadows of the tree, etc. Those shadows don't fit the nighttime scene, unless there is a VERY bright moon off to the left, casting a hard shadow (which doesn't fit the sky I chose). But I didn't feel like spending the time to adjust or remove the shadows, as some others did (which I think is appropriate, e.g., @smadell, @David in Яuislip).
There's a lot that can be done to meet your desired outcome, but as @Alfred mentioned, you need to learn the basics. There are many tools and techniques that can be employed, and many things that are needed to do this convincingly, and that takes a bit of time to learn. I hope all these posts are helpful. 

Day to Night.afphoto

(8Hi, @Ghomul. If I understand what you’re trying to do, you need to use a Compound Mask. The compound mask should probably contain (i) the Luminosity Range mask; and (ii) a “regular” mask. On the regular mask, make sure to paint white on the areas on which the luminosity mask should apply, and black on the other parts. Then (and this is the important part) set the “operator” to Intersect. That will make sure the compound mask applies only to areas that are white on both masks.
By the way, Easter is spelled with only 1 “s”.

Ussually!

(8Hi, @Ghomul. If I understand what you’re trying to do, you need to use a Compound Mask. The compound mask should probably contain (i) the Luminosity Range mask; and (ii) a “regular” mask. On the regular mask, make sure to paint white on the areas on which the luminosity mask should apply, and black on the other parts. Then (and this is the important part) set the “operator” to Intersect. That will make sure the compound mask applies only to areas that are white on both masks.
By the way, Easter is spelled with only 1 “s”.