Jump to content

Clau_S

Members
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Clau_S

  1. I only talked about one, anyway, out of curiosity, could you tell me why? I tried other DAMs in the past and Expression Media 2 (I bought it when it was owned by Microsoft) was the most convincing for me back then. It was also the DAM of choice of Peter Krogh's The DAM Book, that was a sort of Bible of DAM. I think that now he may be most geared towards Lightroom, but I passed to Affinity suite to get away from Adobe subscriptions. I stuck with Media Pro because of the integration with Capture One, that got lost when Phase One implemented cataloging functions directly into the raw converter. Recently I just tried DigiKam discarding it almost immediately. Affinity files are the only reason I'd have to move to another manager, but in all those years other apps may have introduced features that I'm not taking into account and you could help me reconsider my needs. Thank you in advance.
  2. The lack of a DAM able to manage properly Affinity's file(s) (beyond the simple thumbnail preview) is frustrating. I've been using Phase One Media Pro (formerly Microsoft Expression Media and iView Media Pro) for the last 12 years and I'm still pretty happy with it. Media Pro could be configured to accept new file types but being limited to 4 digit extensions prevents Affinity's files to be imported. Having to rely on multi-layered Tiffs is the only workaround (only for pictures) at the moment, but at the expense of a huge waste of disk space. Since Phase One discontinued Media Pro a few years ago, my most cherished dream would be that Serif buys it up improving it only where needed, replacing Quick Time functions with a solid integration with Affinity's features and a full support to their proprietary file types. Reviving a robust software with a good reputation could be a good solution for them too if, despite the statements, they haven't been able (or didn't have resources) to develop one from scratch in at least 5 years or more.
  3. With Data Marge Layout Tool I can make them on a single page, but they would need more further edits 'cause I cannot take advantage of Master Pages flexibility to differentiate backgrounds. I also could place my old empty labels in a grid and use Data Merge Layout Tool to create only text layers, but then I should move any text layer in the corresponding label group. This process would almost take as much time as copy-pasting and I don't know if I could speed it up with a macro. Almost there: 1 Language, 31 different maps.
  4. Unfortunately, as I wrote in my opening post, they are 2790 different labels. The structure is pretty the same for every labels set, but the text is different. I made a template for labels last year and for every board I edited it adding the texts manually before importing, but copying/pasting 2790 texts would be a suicide. Looking for a solution, I found that Data Merge feature was added to Pub and it's a real bless to me. I just hoped to find a way just as effective to quickly import the labels in my document. At this point I will rely on one of the methods that I said earlier and eventually will ask for a new feature in the proper forum.
  5. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I have to make 31 boards (they are 31 different versions of the same board game). Each board will be made in a dedicated afphoto document. All of these will be single page documents and I need to place the respective 90 labels (coming from a publisher file -this is the 90 pages document) on any document. So there will be 2790 labels for 31 boards in total. 90 labels for each board. I work in AP because it's an artistic/graphic job and I need Photo tools. Also I know Photo pretty well compared to Publisher. Anyway, working in Publisher (with the integrated Photo persona) wouldn't change the situation since I should still find a way to have all the labels laid out in a single page avoiding as much as possible time consuming tasks or the need for further edits. I already made the same job last year but working on a few boards, one board at a time and with a lot of time for each. So I did the labels manually (also data merge wasn't a feature in Publisher yet). This time I have many boards and I need to hurry up. So I was looking for the fastest way. If Publisher had the ability to export any page individually as an affinity file or there was a way to load pages as individual groups (or if there is a way in publisher to copy all layers, from all pages, at once) my job would be easier.
  6. Thanks for your reply, but I already knew that. I'll try to be more specific. I'll create the labels in Publisher with the help of data merge that will output a new 90 pages document (one page for any label). In my Photo document I need to place and distribute all the 90 labels, so all the 90 pages. As I said, If I import the afpub (basically all Affinity formats are the same if I recall correctly) into Photo, I should duplicate the embedded document 89 times and set each of the layers to show a different page to have all the 90 different labels on my board. That's pretty time consuming considering I should repeat it 2759 times to complete all my boards. Another approach would be to use the Data Merge Layout Tool to create all the labels in a single page, but since their background will change too (I have 6 different colors) I should edit them nonetheless. Maybe faster but not as much as I'd like. With the other method I could set 6 master pages to differentiate the background.
  7. Hi everybody, I've searched for a similar question but I haven't found it. It's even difficult to express the topic exactly in a title. I hope I did nothing wrong and that I'll make myself clear as this is not my language. I'm painting some boards in Affinity Photo. I have to make 31 and I have to put 90 different labels on each for a total of 2790 different labels. Data merge feature in Publisher will help me populate the labels quickly. The problem is that I can't find a way to import them in Photo (and I'm not that much into Publisher yet). Actually I have found several ways but not the practical one I'm looking for, since Publisher cannot export pages separately in Affinity format, while importing an .afpub into Photo won't give you the chance to separate pages as you can do with PDFs. I came up with this: Dragging/placing the .afpub file in Photo document will show only one page. To have all the 90 labels displayed I should duplicate the layer 89 times and select the right page for each. Too long to repeat 2790 times. Copying/pasting every page in a new group in Photo would be at last as long as the previous method. Exporting every page in a raster format would prevent any further edit. It's not that I really need it, but if I'd need I should go back to Publisher and export/import again. Also I'd prefer to deal with text and shapes until the end. A more viable approach would be to export every single page in PSD format, but having to rely on an external file type instead of the proprietary one sounds cumbersome to me. Also there could be inconsistencies too. Any ideas on how to import quickly all Publisher document's pages into Photo as individual embedded documents or groups?
  8. Ok. In my workaround I had taken into account a mask nested inside a layer and in that case I sepcified that the Levels Adjustment need to be nested above the mask to affect it (below it's masked too), but I wasn't sure you were talking about this. Check if this was the case. You could avoid to make groups, otherwise you already have the solution to your problem.
  9. Could you please send a file or post a screenshot to show what you mean?
  10. And if you just need to be sarcastic, out of point and not constructive why wasting your time here? I don't care how many years Adobe have taken to come out with it. Other programs have it and it's simply a useful tool (at least for me and all the others that are requesting it). If you don't need it or believe otherwise, move on. There's no need to mark territory. Your workflow won't change if Affinity will add something that other users need. Also, if I'm wasting my time here, is because I think that Affinity Photo is a very good program (and it's almost one year that I've left PS for it), but needs some improvements nonetheless. There are basic features that are a standard (for a reason!) over editing apps and, as you could see by reading my very few posts, you will notice that all of them are to ask features that will improve Photo and/or try to share workarounds in the meanwhile. So I'm here because I'm a proactive and helpful user. Are you too?
  11. Well... probably nobody thought that quick mask and the requested mask overlay are the same... 'cause actually they are not. Q toggles the Quick mask that, despite the name, is a quick selection edit, not a mask edit. You can't just select the mask (or the adjustment layer with the mask drawn) and press Q. You have first to make a selection out of the mask and then you can press Q to have the red overlay matching the mask. But, at this point, any edit you do will affect the selection, not the mask. To apply it to the mask, well, you'd better create a new one from the actual selection than paint in with your brush 'cause you may have both parts to add and to remove and you will need to invert the selection, but brushing more times on transparent parts will mess them. So the Quick mask is not the solution but rather the usual time consuming workaround. It is no coincidence that PS has both the quick edit and the red mask overlay. Two different things for different purposes.
  12. There are even more very basic features lacking or that need a complex approach (for something that PS would accomplish with a single slider or button) or require you to workaround a bit (or a lot). Obviously to each its own and professionals cannot waste their time. Regarding raw development, a possible workaround for a non destructive editing is to use an external developer (Capture One, RawTherapee and so on) and place the image as a linked document. Should you decide to change something in the original development, you'd do in the external app, replace the exported file and update AP document.
  13. I know, but that's the only thing for now other than going back to Photoshop... 🙄 Did you target Alpha channel?
  14. I haven't been using PS for one year now, but I think you should replicate the density slider with a Levels Adjustment layer. Where to put it depends on where the mask is. For adjustment layers and released masks you have to put it inside them. If there's a mask inserted in a pixel/image layer, the Levels Adjustment needs to be above the mask. You have to target the Alpha channel of Levels. Basically the Output White Level will double the opacity slider while the Output Black Level should replicate the behavior of the density slider in PS bringing the black up to white at 100%. So at 100% the mask is completely gone. You can also use Black/White Level and Gamma sliders to edit mask brightness and contrast.
  15. It is very very partial 'cause you can read the alpha value of a mask only if it is applied to a pixel layer. You can't do that when masks affect (or are drawn directly in) adjustment layers. Also Alpha is expressed as a percentage while grey scale goes from 0 to 255, so you have to do the math. I second your original request 'cause, even working with isolated masks, it's not possible to directly sample the grey/alpha value of the particular area we need to work on. A very annoying workaround is: select the mask, go to Channels and create a Greyscale layer from Mask Alpha. Reveal this layer to sample from it, hide it and go back to the mask to work on it. Or work this greyscale layer and make a new mask out of it. This makes it really too complicated and annoying for something that should be immediate as color picking from the mask. The problem is that actually, even though when isolated (and in layer's preview) masks appear as greyscale layers, they're not greyscale but "alphascale". Masks are not made of grey values but of alpha values. In fact you can create a mask even with white only, just decreasing its opacity in Colour panel (0% to hide, 100% to reveal). That's why you can't take a greyscale image and make it a mask just nesting it inside another layer (as long as the greyscale image is completely solid, it won't hide anything regardless its pixels values. Actually it is just a -uselessy uneven- clipping mask not clipping anything), but you can't even paste a grayscale image on a mask as in PS to convert it to a mask. It's like there's a grey to alpha converter between front end and back of masks, but it works discontinuously or juust in one direction. So we can paint grey on a mask (and this is converted to alpha) but we can't pick grey from it (i.e. alpha is not converted to grey for us). But the "stupidest" thing is that, when trying to pick from an isolated mask, the picker's zoom show the mask pixel value. So why can't we just have that grey value in one click?
  16. I add myself to the list of those who think it's a fundamental feature
  17. I'm resuming this old topic 'cause I've just found the same happening in Photo 1.9. I've tested on three different raw formats.
  18. I resume this topic not to open a new one on the same subject. I know that curve nodes precise editing has been added in 1.9 and I was happy with it until I found the awkward range of values from 0(.000) to 1(.000). Affinity Photo help recommends to use it for precision 32-bit linear workflows, but actually it's totally useless for me. I mean, curves are still a powerful tool to match colors in an old fashioned 8-bit workflow, and adding coordinates would be the fastest way if x and y values could be expressed in 0-255 values too. Having only this range from 0 to 1 makes no sense to me or is limiting at least. I still have to rely on color readouts or to rely on math, time consuming anyway.
  19. Another missing feature whose absence is felt. I've got some old raw pictures of my artworks that I can't edit in Capture One. Straightening in LR/ACR/Photoshop was the easiest process, but I don't want to rely on Adobe anymore. Straightening in Photo is unnecessary articulated. Too many steps to get it right and get the right proportions. I feel like being back to Photoshop 7. A crop tool/transform improvement would be very welcomed.
  20. I've been very surprised discovering that Photo is missing such a basic feature. This is not the only aspect where it's lacking the flexibility of Photoshop in very basic operations. I don't want it to be a simple PS clone, but there are things that should be a standard. When you're used to work fast because the app allows you to do it, and suddenly you find yourself decades back, mmm... Fifty points from Gryffindor.
  21. If someone is interested I've created a Macro to make the process faster. After execution, you only need to pick the color from the appropriate area with the Color picker tool (I haven't been able to integrate this in the Macro) and set Solid color layer visibility back. Color Cast Removal.afmacro
  22. Thank you! I was looking exactly to reproduce that tutorial. I was pretty sure that I could obtain the same result inverting the sampled color and applying another blending option, but as a novice in Affinity Photo I wasn't able to invert only the fill layer. I don't know why adding an adjustment as a child has no effect on fill layers. Grouping was the key. For everyone else looking for color cast removal, the only missing part from the tutorial was to reproduce the behavior of the B slider in PS to bring back clipped details. If I'm not missing something (I can't exclude it), you cannot do it directly on Photo 'cause it uses an HSL method instead of the HSB. Raising the L (Lightness) value to the top brings the color to white, cancelling the effect. In HSB instead, raising the B (Brightness) value to the top, brightens the color to the maximum value allowed by hue and saturation. To keep it short, if you add and HSL adjustment between the Fill layer and the Invert adjustment and check the HSV (which is the same as HSB) option, you can use the Luminosity shift as the B slider in Photoshop color panel. Raise it to 100% and you're good to go.
  23. This is my first message so hi everybody. I want to leave Photoshop for Affinity Photo. As for my needs a screen resolution setting is required. As a painter I use to study and prepare my works through photo manipulation. So I have to check them at the actual size (where actual should mean the print size, but since I am the "printer", it's the drawing/painting size). I also use actual size to take some measurements directly on the screen so I can quickly report them on paper. As such a true, accurate actual size is very important for me. Affinity Photo actual size is anything but actual, 'cause without a pixel density value (which changes from screen to screen) it can't be calculated. Instead actual size is really accurate in Photoshop. Nothing fancy. It's just that it takes into account both image print resolution (the document own PPI value) and screen pixel density (you set it on preferences as you can see from the attached image) to calculate the right zoom factor and rulers scale.. There are some workarounds you can apply in Affinity photo: 1) You can set the image PPI resolution to that of the screen and view the image at 100%. This way rulers will be ok, but you have to resample the image to make it respect the sought-after size. (Absolutely no way!) 2) You can do some math (or empirical tests) to find the right PPI setting that will show the correct size for actual size without resampling. This way you'll see the image at the right size but rulers will be out of scale. 3) You can do some math (or empirical tests) to find the proper zoom factor leaving the image unaltered. This way both actual size and the rulers will be ok, but basically you're doing manually what Photoshop does automatically and the annoying thing is that this way you cannot use the shortcut for actual size. You have to re-set that zoom value manually every time you need it. With such a simple setting like screen resolution, Affinity Photo could calculate it automatically and give an accurate on-screen representation. Sorry for the length. This is not my language and I hope I made myself clear.
×
×
  • 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.