InfaRed

I could see the analogy, but for me, personally, from my own experience, no. To thumb through a manual to find a basic answer is like finding a needle in a haystack. At least from my experience. Manuals are written horribly from my experience, overly explaining things I do not want to know about and leaving out things I do want to know about. I like the human interaction. Asking human beings questions streamlines the answer quickly to what you asked. Plus you get a little personality in each answer too ! I definitely appreciate the answers and help guys. If I am wasting anyones time I apologize and by all means feel free to ignore me. I get it and wouldn't take it personally. Videos I would love ! They relate to me very well. But again, its tough cause the needle in a haystack thing. I did indeed try to search for my answers before I came here. Awesome. Thanks for the links. Helps tremendously.

Thanks guys for all the help. Really helped me out. TBH I haven't tested everything out as to grouping and whether or not you can still tweak adjustment layers in a group or as child layers or which way is best.. BUT I get the gist of it all and its much appreciated ! I will report back if I have any problems. Sorry most of my questions are super rudimentary, but I do not use the program much and reading any manuals is just too difficult. If I did that I wouldn't use the program at all ! lol So @Pšenda , on a side note - I notice you have that one setting option thing in the layer window set to "passthrough" I do not believe I ever set it to that or anything other than what it is by default which I believe is "normal". To my understanding those are all different ways/approaches to how it applies blending to the said layer correct ? When I scroll through them I notice it doing stuff to the image, etc.. but never anything I like. But I swear I never even seen the option "passthrough". How do you get to that ? And what is it doing that causes a person to like to use it opposed to normal ?

Great, thank you. I have just tried this and verifying it works for me. It accomplishes making it so when resizing or moving, they all react together as one. The issue is, even though I can still see them individually, its not letting me adjust them still individually like I could when they were separate. I imagine this is just how it goes ? So you need to make sure you got it how you want it before doing this ? Or is there a way. Thanks Psenda, so I have been looking and can't seem to find the "group" option on adjustments. Where is this ? And overall update, yes OldBruce was correct. After I finally found the assistant manager (why is this just not in preferences ? lol) I seen that every option like this was set to create a new layer. BUT if you can not still adjust things separately if they are child layers, then maybe I want to keep it like this ? I have not tested that yet.

Thanks Bruce ! Appreciate it., that sounds like a solution to making it so this stops happening. But I guarantee I never changed that myself, because I never even seen the assistant manager, nor knew it existed. lol. So that being said, I will check that and then adjust the setting to "child layer" if its not already on that ? If it is, then yea I guess I got bigger problems. Now, can you or anyone tell me how I get "new layer" adjustments to be part of the layer after the fact of creating them as separate layers ? Meanwhile I will check the status of that setting later when I got a chance.

Hi guys. Hoping someone can help me. I got a couple questions regarding why certain things keep happening to me when making layer adjustments, then trying to move the layer or resize it. First question is more simple, as I believe its what gets me into this. But next questions will be, how to get out of this if indeed stuck in it. So lets say I have 3 layers. Pixel layer 1, 2 & 3. And now lets say I want to adjust the white balance, brightness, and saturation on the image within ONLY layer 2. I swore a long time ago I just clicked on that layer and once the bounding box appeared (tool on the cursor thing) then when I went to adjustments and stared fiddling, it would *only* effect that layer. But lately, multiple testing it effects the entire document. (ALL layers !). Is this normal ? If not, then what can I do to *quickly* only effect the selected layer ? So the workaround I found for now is I do as I click on that layer and once the bounding box appears (tool on the cursor thing) I then go to "Select" and chose "select from layer", this then automatically makes a selection around the image I want to adjust things on. Ok.. so is that the only way to achieve that ? Cause if so -- ok, BUT that's when question 2 arises. Doing the above workaround works, yes. I get the look(s) I want to achieve. But now at a cost. Because now lets say I decided I want to resize or even move the layer 2 image that I adjusted some stuff on. WELL, oddly those adjustments are separated from the layer for some reason and they stay put and the image moves but not the adjustment effects. So how to I make them be a part of the layer so I can resize and move both the adjustments and layer together as one ? OR better yet, how do I approach adjustments to layers so that them things automatically are "one with" the intended layer I am adjusting them on/for ? And what happened to the ability to just highlight a layer and once I started adjusting, it knew to only effect the highlighted layer ? Was this my imagination ? lol I swore back when I used to do that it also was "one with" that layer too when wanting to resize or move. Please help/advise - Thanks

ha ! Understood. I agree and I definitely don't want to confuse anyone. On a side tangent though, I just still say in this particular case, the definition of Macro as a whole is much broader than many people are thinking (apparently). In the link provided above, all that really is, is Affinity designers naming that feature a "Macro Panel" (which all that is really is a auto script writing recorder and playback). It does not mean that is exactly to a tee the only true definition of Macro as a useable word even within Affinity as a whole. (IMO). "A single computer instruction that stands for a sequence of operations" - Dude, thats pretty broad. You got to admit. But you are right, at the end of the day its about communication. And if no one gets my vernacular in this pool, then.. haha yea, I have to adapt. Point taken good sir !

Like I said, leave it to musicians to shatter and break any technical law, rule or definition of a word and use it in another way ! hahah Oh man, years ago when the term "Stem" was starting to get used to describe individual tracks (hi hat, snare, kick, bass, keys, guitar) being tracked out individually, there was a total total uproar. Because IMO its being used in reverse. A "stem" branches off into leaves, so the stem should be all the tracks recorded into one track, and the individual tracks should be called "Leaves". BUT since that sounds lame (send me the leaves bro !), everyone just continues to use the term "Stem" ("Send me the stems bro so I can mix it down better") to describe that even though at this point we all realize its wrong. With Macro's though, IDK man, the definition you sent does lead to several possible technically correct definitions IF you let your mind get creative. "a rule or pattern that specifies how a certain input should be mapped to a replacement output". So lets use a example of Copying something. - The *output* is "copy", and the usual *input* done by going to edit, drop down menu and choosing "copy". This is usual input coupled with its usual output. But there is a *rule* written with-in the software that if you press Command+C (which are just keys, so they have different *outputs* by themselves) that action gets *mapped* to a replacement *output* called "copy". So yea, IDK, IMO by definition anytime you stroke a combination keys and that action does a output that is otherwise done another way manually, then IMO that qualifies as a "Macro". No ? But the term of "certain input" and "mapping to a replacement output" doesn't necessarily say it needs to be large or a sequence per se. From my understanding anytime you use a key to trigger something that otherwise is done via a menu or GUI button, that technically could be considered a Macro, because the output/outcome has been mapped to respond to said input. If you read on, it even says "Character Macros" are a correct term. Also says: "may be a sequence" - key words, *may be*, meaning, doesn't has to always be. IDK - then there is this unprofessional/unofficial explanation of the differences: https://wikidiff.com/shortcut/macro By wider, more creative definition though, I think the above link could be wrong. We have evolved into using badass to mean something good. Cool to mean awesome, etc.. so yea, a Macro can easily be a replacement definition to shortcut IMO. Doesn't seem too far fetched.

So that is not the "bounding box". (as my video said) - Rather it was a lighting thing I did on a old layer. I later deleted the layer thinking everything for that layer would go away. It did visually, so I thought. Weeks later I come back to it to do the new editing I want, and what ended up happening is for some weird reason the lighting box thing remained though no other information to the layer or the lighting settings remained, and seemed to override other functions for other layers. And basically cause everything we see happening. Thank you !! What I meant by position is, how it was in the canvas and all info (good info) attached to it, like its position, etc.. but no worries, @N.P.M. did that for me as well. Still thanks man ! This is all useful. This is what I thought I did. I do not even know what a Alpha channel is, I do not know what a "pixel layer", etc.. is. lol - I just do what I do and Affinity seems to make this sh*t up on what it does and decides to call it. I basically made rectangular "selections" and then fill them with white. Then since some are identical sizes needed, I just copy it and then move that copy to where I need it. All these names/identities of things confuse me, but I do see them pop up sometimes. One time (in another project I was working on) I even pasted something in like I usually do, and it went in the new document, BUT its like I couldn't do anything with it because it was some different form of pasting, though I didn't chose a different form. Like it needed to be rendered or released or un-anchored before I could do anything. lol So I just quit, tried again and it worked. This is genius and great ! I just did this on my end and it worked too ! I could then copy the layer to a new document and throw that old one away. So you guys helped me. This is solved and I thank you all greatly. But what isn't solved (if we want to shoot the breeze about it) is how the heck I got into this mess. lol Now, with that Lightbox thing gone, everything works fine (as my assumptions said in the video). So copying a layer to another document is indeed easy breezy in Affinity. You just treat it as anything else you want to copy. I do just feel more comfortable seeing the words "Copy Layer" in the "Layer Drop Down Menu", but that is just me I guess. I just like it. What it would do is remove the confusion I had. Cause of a buggy file, and nowhere does it manually say "copy layer" I came to the *wrong* assumption that Affinity doesn't allow for copying of layers to other documents. With this text in the drop down menu spelt out all simple simon for us idiots, then that wrong assumption would not have even spawned, and right away I would have known something is not functioning properly.

THANK YOU !!! This is working for me now.

BTW, thanks guys for the investigation so far. I gotta run to Costco and grab some groceries. I'll be back. Like I said in my video, if this files is bugged, then really all I need is that Umbrella logo thing (at full res, with all the layer info position, etc..) if someone can just extract that out for me as a layer and put it in a new Affinity file, then send me that, I would greatly appreciate it. Then I can salvage the rest. But thanks to that bug thing, I can not seem to do that myself. The fill layers won't delete, and I can not copy that layer I need. Other than that, I would like to learn what I did to get myself into this mess so it doesn't happen again - Thanks to all !

221220001_ScreenRecording2022-08-03at2_00_44PM.mov Screen Recording 2022-08-03 at 2.12.35 PM.mov

I would really appreciate that @thomaso ! I will try to attach it below: Next I will make that video of how I can't resize other files when I get them in there. REsingle.afphoto

Ahhh, haha.. Ok, well then I already knew that, I copy and paste like that a lot.. I thought the OP was specifically talking about Macs. Also, I thought the Control-Command-C would tell it to copy a layer and all its stuff opposed to just the image of the layer, *because* I was having buggy issues as you said and when that happens, false thoughts always come to ones mind about what is a fix.. It was not operating properly, so I though Affinity didn't have a copy layer function, only copy selection if you know what I mean. Yes I will try to also make another video about the resizing thing. But because I do that regularly successfully, I knew it was just a bug specific to this canvas and TBH I bet I caused that bug. But my gripe is I should not be able to. It happens a lot. I know its that dumb lighting box thing that won't go away. As far as posting the video directly, thats exactly what I tried, it came up as a link, I do not see any other options to upload unless it considers it a "attachment" ? I will try that. But that is not usual to forum video uploading. I am used to a "video upload" button at the top. So in my world (Pro Tools, Music Industry, etc..) "Macro" is a word used to also describe when you press a combination of keys to achieve something. Yes "Shortcuts", but shortcuts is longer to say. I agree, its probably wrong by geeky technical definition, but so are several words we all use everyday. So my apologies, but yes I was referring to key combinations. In general, I like to find the manual menu option version at first, THEN learn the macro. I do not like it the other way around. I am a "manual", hands on, go slow type of guy. It does not apply now, but my confusion after googling "how to copy a layer in Affinity" drew me here, then that caused me to think the only way to copy/paste a entire layer is to use Command-Control-C/V. HENCE the confusion of my complaints. Now I think we are realizing I have a bugged out canvas (again, I bet my fault though, lol) I do stand behind not understanding why its so easy to brick canvases. I do it a lot and have to start over, when I start over its all good. But getting tired of that so I want to learn now (hopefully on this file) what it is I keep doing. In Pro Tools, when I was a rookie (back in 1998) it was always when you set something you didn't understand to something and can not tell if its engaged or not.. you know them little tiny things.. and when it is engaged (or not) it causes the normal functions to not function correctly due to it being in some "mode". I have a weird feeling this keeps happening to me here in Affinity. Which is why I hate all the little tiny things to be able to press. And new age sh*t lately is so one dimensional (no longer looks like a real button) that I can't tell what is on and what is off. Affinity is riddled with functions. Which for pro's, sure thats great. But its also a recipe for disaster if you are a weekend user like me. I keep bringing up PhotoShop because no one can say that aint pro... yet it doesn't have those problems with its GUI design (for me). Sadly I won't support subscription based communism, so Adobe been out for me for a while now. Thats how I found Affinity. But unfortunately, its not the PS killer I thought it would be. I'd gladly pay twice (hell 3 times) as much (perpetual license) for it if it was. I appreciate how inexpensive it is and how they made it almost identical to PS. BUT it is lacking lots of things, and if I can see this being a weekend warrior, I am not sure how pro's utilize it. If you check my other posts over the last couple years, you will see my other complaints/suggestions/customer feedbacks.

Thanks @thomaso! Hopefully that video helps. I pretty much know what's going on in a small way. But not being able to use the Macro, that, I have no clue why thats doesn't work as you guys promise it does. But the other thing(s), its like anything else thats overwhelming, I have done something previously in this canvas that I can not reverse, and it caused it to basically be a moot document until I can reverse/delete whatever it is I did. This is very common thing when someone is in a app that they are not savvy with. But I am just frustrated because Affinity has a lot of these possibilities for a rookie user to do. Photoshop didn't. Affinity is suppose to be the "Photoshop killer". (IMO). So that thing you see, I know how it began, I just can't delete or know why it stayed. Its some filter/lighting box or something if I remember right. I went too far with it, then couldn't undo it. Now I can not delete it and I think its not allowing me to now do anything to the base layer. As it becomes the selection instead of the image. Which SUCKS. Why can't I delete it ? No where is it a separate thing from the layer to delete in any option I see. I want to assure you guys, I have made many of this light switch plates already, all in success and all using Affinity. So I am successful at times. Also I know I could easily recreate what you see. But at this point it has become frustration principle. I need to learn how to overcome this in this bricked canvas so I can fix these issues when they come up next time. Plus I need to stop bricking these canvases. Learning from you guys wtf happened will really help. Thanks !

Here you guys go - maybe this will help show the turmoil I am going through: Affinity Oddities

Yea I swear I used to be able to do it too the way your video shows (but thats really clicking on the image, not the layer) and yes it used to work for me too. But not now. I highlight layer, try the macros described here and all I get is a error sound (Mac users know what I mean), and when I try to paste, obviously it pastes nothing. So macro not working. I then try the other method of using "copy", and "paste" and at least then it copies, but it only pastes a blank layer with nothing in it ! That last problem I never had. Let me also explain the only reason I am doing this is to try to move the good things I have left from this canvas over to a blank new start because Affinity (as usual) has bricked this canvas somehow. Its doing goofy stuff, I can't even import a new image like I used to as it doesn't allow me to resize the image once its in. No way to select it, even when I'm selected on it. Plus a few other goofy things. This happens a lot. I have to toss the whole thing and start over. Mainly because I don't know what is going on that I will admit. But like I said, it took me way shorter to learn Photoshop on my own without asking one question. This software is insanely lacking in natural intuitive communication IMO.

This is wrong. Doesn't work. Any more details here ? Its amazing to me that I can not copy layers from on document/canvas to another simply. Is there a manual menu way to do this ? I just get a error sound when I try to use the Macros, so that is not the correct macro. In Photoshop I figured out how to do that in seconds 15 years ago. In Affinity I have spent 2 days throwing things against my wall. Why create a program so unintuitive ? "COPY LAYER" it's simple.

Is there any reason why there is not a "copy layer" choice in the Layer dropdown window ? This would make things a trillion times easier, also this is like elementary stuff PhotoShop had decades ago that made it so easy and simply to understand. To have a function only available as a macro is entirely insane. What is this some secret "easter egg" function ?

And that's what I am saying. That makes no sense. Look closely. There are 11 ORIGINAL definitions of export. And 1 (one) measly new age amendment to the original definitions. There are plenty *new* definitions of old words that make no sense and have no merit other than complete new age childish youth non-sense misusing words. "Stems" in the audio world is another one. Used totally wrong, and used totally wrong for so long that the dictionaries have wrongfully followed suit. So you can't use a dictionary as proving something right or wrong anymore. Like politicians, they've lost all credit. Use logic instead of a dictionary. Thats the simplest. They are doing it with lots of things now a days. Cause people are dumb, then dumb catches on. And well, here we are ! BUT the dictionary does have it there if you read between the lines. 11 normal usual original definitions that predate the one, and 1 hilarious misused new-age definition. That says it all right there. Either way, like I said, we will never agree. But you guys with this mental block seem to conform (which is the problem), whereas I do not. Just because the government says its law, or a dictionary says this or that does NOT mean that's correct to a natural universal law. So I stick to original. Unless the new thing makes sense. Which in this case it does not. Doesn't matter at the end of the day, if I like pressing a blue button to get food, and the machine changes it to a red button, I will complain, but still know to press the red button to get food and just be unhappy about it. So it really doesn't matter. I am just saying, I hate the word Export being used the way it has started to be in the last 10 years. It's ludicrous plus just looks bad compared to "Save As". Export doesn't "click" for me for the definition that I know it to be. Thats all. And it angers me how society just loves to buy into crap. Instead of sticking to solid, good, logical ways. Shall we go down the list ? You can no longer use the words "Mom and Dad". Don't know if you heard, but its literally against the law. Because that's wrong and a kid without a mom or a dad or one with a transgender parent will feel some type of way (lol) sooooo, of course we all have to conform to the "hurt feelings" crowd and no longer use the ever so famous words I grew up on called Mom and Dad. You can no longer say Mailman. You can no longer say Manhole Cover. - ALL these are to soon be changed in the dictionary.... and is that right ? Hmmmmm.. I'll let you decide. For me - no it is not. The world needs to quit trying to reinvent the wheel, making it square in the process and claiming how much better it is ! Either way, like the word Stems. The dictionary got the word Export *WRONG*. How embarrassing for them. Maybe more embarrassing for those that buy into it and support it without thinking about it and taking a unique, individual, one of a kind stand instead of moving along with all the cattle.

Totally agree. Hence the whole point of this thread and my other postings. Also, I dipped out for a sec, but just from a personal terminology side (and I am always right cause I think logically and not emotionally) I still vastly disagree with @R C-R and the others backing the illogical concept of what export vs save as means, should mean in this situation. BUT due to neither side ever having any solid right or wrong thing, this debate could go on forever. Cause this subject is not finite. Best way I can describe this from a superior mind like myself is this: As you both pointed out - EXPORT means to travel. Hence also by definition Export is a more serious thing. More is going on. Right ? We can all agree there. I look at the word Export as something more serious than Save As. Because its vibe and energy as the group of letters imply that. Just look at them for a sec. Theoretically the word Export shouldn't even be a thing in these apps - Let me explain. If I were to export you from your house, would you be in the same house ? No. Export means to move. Ok ? Very simple. Your house is a perfect analogy to a App. NOT a frickin format. Changing format is nothing serious. You can change your format/clothes and still remain in the same house. Format is more related to what you are wearing. This is because nothing really changes except the skin, its the same really. And in the same place, just changed its clothes. So EXPORT implies your file needs to TRAVEL somewhere - to another app/house is the only logical thing because file formats do not travel, they are clothes, there is no house/country to change, just clothes... "Save As" (which has less gravitational pull due to having same name as Save in it, so implying a less serious task) should be used to change file type. Since its the same as save really, you just want to change its clothes BUT do not need it to travel anywhere. Its also a less serious task, so the name fits. Save & Save As are almost the same. Save is so common, so Save As should be second most common (which is saving as a different file type - no ?). VERY logical. Export now has totally changed letters here. It by far is implying a far more serious task. Something NOT related to Save. Get it ? As it does not have the word Save within it. So it should be used for the least common task and the task that best fits its description of TRAVEL. FYI, file format changing is not traveling. Thats ludicrous to even think so. The word in the description says it all = It is "CHANGING" = changing its clothes. Thats it. Very simple. EXPORTING is traveling, and traveling is "MOVING". Our files really do not even need to "move". Just be saved as something else. If you want to use that something else in a new place then fine. But that's a whole other secondary thing, outside of the Affinity app. Where you are right is this is how it is. So you are right there. Where you are wrong is trying to defend that and bending it into something that makes sense. Cause it don't. Export = Travel. File Format changing is NOT traveling. That said - really we don't even need the Export function/title. It is dumb and confusing. Everything should be under "Save" and "Save As" as that could accomplish everything and make sense too. Save As whatever you want, then open in a new app if you want.

Oh yea I totally get that. I just like Save As better. Its what I am used to. Also a wiki description of something is entirely different that a Webster Merriam definition. As Wiki can take something wrong like a trend of society (which uses words wrong all the time) and describe it. It doesn't mean it is correct. It just means its been adopted to be used as such. There are many new things like that that I hate now-a-days. All technically incorrect usage. You are right though, Save As when used how I like it is just literally the same coded function as how Export is now in Affinity. I'm just trying to preach how it should remain Save As. As it not only makes more sense, but is more correct verbally. I just always gravitate towards clicking on Save As, cause its what I've been used to. Thats personal I know. lol Anyway, this whole thing has ran its course. I was just pointing out that I do not like it. And I am sure many others feel the same way.

Actually yes I did/do understand that. But thanks for repointing it out. I do indeed get the reasoning. I just don't like the reasoning is all. I like the original way. Thats all I am saying. Maybe this is a better way of putting it. More simple, and matters less about what is happening or not under the hood. I would like in the "Save As" option to have all possible file saving options there. Just like it is in 99% of other apps I been used to. And in Export option, only have option to send the file directly to another app. Again, like that is suppose to be. That has always been the norm for decades now. So in summary, you should be using Save As a lot more than Export. (unless your workflow sends to other apps more than saving as different files/same files) - Its just my personal liking. Mainly cause its sticking to normal terminology over the last 20 years.

For #1, when I chose "Save As" in Affinity, it never allows me to save as anything other than a .aphoto file. (which is my complaint.) If indeed you are right, maybe I am missing something. lol I will go look again. But that's my whole complaint, (not like its really a big deal) but I can never use Save As to save anything ever other than .aphoto files. So thanks for the info, let me go try a few different things. Maybe its been my workflow ? Ironically always happens to corner me in the same situation here ? IDK. And yes, that very last part, THAT is IMO the correct usage of the word "Export" - notice how they use "Export To", which is even more correct. IMO. I'd like to see more apps use that and in that way. Cause your sending it to something (as you said). But IMO, I do not think saving a .jpg from a .jpg after some mockups to your desktop is considered "sending" it anywhere. Know what I mean ? Just my opinion of how I look at it. My issue, is if I want to save any file other than .aphoto files, then I need to click on Export. Period. No way around it. I been using photo apps since 1998, and for me, the exact way Affinity does it, is just alien. I agree you can figure it out and still use it. But IMO, its not normal to my history. Again, not a big deal, but just shooting the breeze here 🙂 I personally think they could improve it. And hope they do. All it is is word terminology, that all. All functions are there. I am being petty - yes.

If you like using a word that means to travel. Sure ok. For me, I like a word that means what I am doing. And that would be = Save As. Export's definition = to send/travel. I'm not sending my files anywhere. I want to "Save" them "As" something else or save them as same file type, either way, its save as. But I do understand this is just preference. I am just pointing out this is a first for a app to do this, and all other Apps and from the past especially use Save As to save stuff. Not export only.

No, you're misunderstanding. I didn't say you're not editing. I said jpg to jpg. For instance, open/load a jpg, edit some things in affinity then save as a jpg. This should be "Save As". Not export. It's illogical.