Juergen S

Guten Morgen Andy, vielen Dank für Dein beherztes Engagement! 😃 Das sieht natürlich um Welten besser aus, keine Frage. 👍 Hast Du dafür die Schriftgröße verändert? Das wollte ich eigentlich vermeiden und bin dann irgendwie wohl deshalb an meiner unschönen Version hängengeblieben. Hätte ich aber trotzdem einfach tun sollen, wie man sieht. Schöne Grüße Jürgen

Vielen Dank R C-R, thank you very much! I will check it out …

Vielen Dank, ich habe es versucht und versucht und versucht. Es klappt einfach nicht, egal was und wie ich es mache! Ich geb's jetzt auch auf. 🙄

Hello NotMyFault, thank you very much for your tip! I guess I'm too stupid. 1) I pull up a selection 2) Then I enter the desired aspect ratio (if I enter 3:2 for width x height, 3px x 2px appears). 3) Then I set the lock 4) Then I press the Shift key (I have also tried all the others) and drag the selection open. It immediately jumps to a square selection, which is probably due to the Shift key. But as I said, the others (Command key, Alt key and Ctrl key) do not work at all. I don't know, but it's definitely NotMyFault! 😁

Hihi, find ich gut, Deinen Kommentar! 😁 Problem: Es passt sonst einfach nicht. Ich habe auch mal BEIDE Augen zugedrückt, dann tut's weniger weh. Schöne Grüße Jürgen

Quick test ImageOptim Does a very good job with high efficiency. Very similar to Photoshop in terms of characteristics, i.e. moderate artefacts with simultaneous blurring of red and orange tones. All in all, highly recommended and free of charge (open source). The interface is also available in German.

Hello R C-R, thank you very much, I will have a look at that. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the helpful people once again. I am very pleased to see that people are treating each other politely and respectfully here. That is not the case in most forums. Unfortunately, a cynical tone prevails. And let's be honest: Who among us has not overlooked something that is actually obvious? It makes us all the happier when we still receive a polite and respectful answer. In any case, I am very happy to be able to start using Affinity Photo with better knowledge. Best regards Juergen

@carl123 What you say is true. I see everything exactly like that! I think we can close the file now and hope we have all learned something again! Thank you very much Jürgen

Hello Lucáš, yes, I see the differences you describe. To apples with apples: That's also true! At first I compared apples with pears. 😉 With JPG mini I can't intervene, so I can't adjust anything (at least in the demo). In order to compare apples with apples, I set Photoconvert to the same size (approx. 150 KB) as JPG mini spits out. With Photoconvert 4, this is 70 per cent and I find the result quite excellent. With 100 percent scaling, the results also look very good at 40 percent with 71 KB. That's why Photoconvert 4 is currently my tool of choice. Best regards Jürgen

Another quick newbie question, not worth starting a new thread for this: Can I draw a rectangle with a certain aspect ratio or size in AfPh like in PS? I couldn't find anything like that. Thank you in advance Jürgen

Edit: @Carl123 If I set the quality in Photoconvert to 70 percent, Photo Convert JPG mini even beats it in quality. The file sizes are virtually identical at 151 to 156 KB.

JPG converter test So I tried Photoconvert 4 and JPG Mini once now. Photoconvert 4 does its job at least as well as PS and even produces slightly smaller files. Very good! JPG Mini is killer in terms of quality, but unfortunately I don't think there's any way to set the quality level. ?? Everything runs fully automated. Or is that only the case with the demo, Carl? The file size is too big for me with 151 KB, Photoconvert 4 produced an acceptable result with 74 KB at 40 percent, although it does not come close to the result of JPG mini in any way. Jürgen P.S.: Lass uns doch mal in Verbindung bleiben Lucás. Um es mit Humprey's Worten zu zitieren: "Vielleicht ist das ja der Beginn einer wunderbaren Freundschaft ..." 😁 post@gerne-kochen.de

Haha, clearly ambiguous, I understand very very well what you mean! Wie hat es Deiner Frau geschmeckt? Hat Sie dich gelobt oder verlassen? 😉 PS war immer mein Lieblingsprogramm, aber jetzt ist Schluss und Zeit, alte Zöpfe abzuschneiden. Ich will und ich werde mich mit AfPh einarbeiten.

Hello Carl, thank you very much for your tip! I own photoconvert 4 and it never occurred to me to use the app for JPG conversion. I will try that right away. If the result is not good, I look at your tip very gladly. Your footer statement: Hahaha, why should you be better off than us? 😂 My statement is: People always look at what separates them instead of what connects them! Jürgen

I have just meticulously tested it out again to rule out the possibility that I am saying something wrong. The result: For a JPG conversion that corresponds qualitatively (in the sense of the least possible noticeable artefacts) to a PS conversion of 40 percent, I have to set AfPh to exactly 70 percent. At 65 per cent, the result is already visibly worse than in PS. In this particular case, however, the file size is not significantly larger. It is 76.75 KB compared to 113.01 in AfPh. This is hardly important for a single image, that is clear, but on a recipe page like our blog, the whole thing adds up, of course. If a mobile user is on the move with 3G - and these are currently still the majority - the structure of a page can improve or deteriorate noticeably. That's why I try to keep the JPGs as small as possible without any significant loss of quality. And according to my personal practical experience, these are the settings I mentioned above. I could not find any significant difference between AfPh "progressive" and not "progressive". In any case, it makes no difference to the file size (113.01 to 113.14). Cheers Jürgen P.S.: Of coure I've used "bikubisch" in AfPh.