Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

Christoph Werner

Members
  • Posts

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Christoph Werner

  1. Thank you. Actually the most people knows an alternative where this can be done, even in open source apps. The point is: we need it in Affinity Photo and it should be possible in such a tool in my opinion.
  2. I'm working with 32 bit EXR files, even multilayered... So it's not that unimportant. But actually this features are needed for compositing tasks mainly, where AP doesn't make much sence.
  3. The development seem to be more interested in "new cool" features instead of boring industry standards... But I'm still hopeful while I'm back using photoshop meantime.
  4. Alpha channel editing is something the most professionals do every day. And the confusing/unusable system in Affinity is something that should be chagend asap in my opinion. I also don't understand why this is not touched for such a long time. AP could be so good. I stopped to use AP because of this and jumped back to Photoshop.
  5. I know this way. But the most important for many people: You can't paste copied image information into the active mask layer. I would like to know the reason for this missing function?
  6. Sorry. My fault. Hint: But you don't need a seperate spare channel to edit a RGB value. Just click on one of the RGBA channels and you can paint on it. The main problem, that is described but missed in the meantime, is the missing of the possibility to work directly in an alpha channel if it was a regular image layer. I mean to paint, use (most) filters or copy image data into it etc. This is something that is working completely different in Affinity Photo and very complex to understand for people. Too much steps to simply edit an alpha channel. This works more intuitive and better in other software.
  7. Yes. But this funtion is limited to the RGB channels. Alpha is not working this way. And you can't copy/paste directly into channels.
  8. Rotating brushes by using the Wacom Art Pen (Hardware) isn't possible in Affinity Photo. That's the problem.
  9. All modern intuos pro tablets are supporting Art Pens. I'm using the intuos 4 (PTK-640). All works fine in Photoshop, but not in Affinity Photo.
  10. Question: Is there still no full Wacom Art Pen support in Affinity Photo? I mean the special function like rotating brushes using the pen. I've found some users mentioned this issue years ago, but nothing happened as I know. Does Adobe has a patent for this or what is the reason? Hope someone of the developers can answer. Best wishes Chris
  11. Yes, but it would be good to have a more or less complete vector tool set. We have already a corner tool for the rounded rectangle shape. So why not having one also for custom shapes? Doesn't matter. Thank you.
  12. Thank you. I know the most workarounds and don't think the Rounded Rectangle Tool helps in my situation or any others if you've a custom created shape. I would like to create any shape using the vector pen tool. And afterwards setting some corners round by using a single tool. This is a common way, and nothing special. It's ok, if it's not possible in Affinity Photo yet. I hope it will be implemented sometime in the upcoming versions. 🙂 Best wishes
  13. Sorry. I was unclear. I mean one or more individual corners of a shape!
  14. How to make a "shape" to see the hidden(?) corner tool in Affinity PHOTO? Can you show it, please? I haven't found any corner tool in Affinity Photo. No idea how to make a rounded version of a single corner. Before designer users aswers: I don't have Affinity Designer.
  15. You're right and I think all your mentioned conditions are hopefully clear to everyone, if a linked file is missing. An option to increase the preview resolution of the linked image to the set dpi main document size would be good.
  16. Basically you're completely right. But an artist who gets the Affinity Photo project file with missing linked files can't do something with it, currently. The reason are the pixelized previews of missing files. It would safe time doing changes or using the result for other tasks while waiting for the missing data. At the moment you can do nearly nothing and have to wait until the data comes from the creator. Depending of the cooperation this can take days. Why is everyone mostly thinking of single person projects here when such ideas come up? I'm earning money with cg since 1991 professionally and have seen a lot. I like Affinity Photo and just try to improve it with my proposals. Believe me, it's not a bad idea I'm asking for. Happy creating!
  17. This isn't the problem and your're basically right. Your mentioned workflow works fine as long as you're working alone and are responsible for the data yourself. As soon as you get data from strangers or get something very old and not embedded, then you have a problem and my system would at least help. Anyway. You got the point. Let's see if the devs find this here...
  18. I know this, as I wrote it above. But in my opinion it must be always ensured the user can continue the work in some way. Even if the file size will be increased a bit, the current option to save extremely low quality thumbnails can still exists, but there should be an option to save "rasterized previews" of linked layers, too. I've prepared an example to document my proposal In the image below you see a linked photo file. On the left you see what happen, if the file would be rasterized, but still missing. This is my proposal. On the right side you see, what Affinity Photo is doing today if a linked file is missing. Here a list to compare the Affinity Photo project file sizes on a harddrive: File size using linked image (Current Affinity way) = 0.739 Megabytes File size using rasterized image preview (My proposal) = 1.7 Megabytes File size with embedded images (Affinitys way, if we embed the photo. What I don't want to and isn't my proposal!) = 5.77 Megabytes So you can see the project files size increases if we save rasterized linked layer previews, but it's still smaller than embedding it in the default way. My way is safer, because it always keeps a backdoor to work with the project, even if there are file links missing. And following an example how my solution could be implemented into Affinity Photo: The exclamation mark warns the user of missing data. You can see it in the layer panel and at the related image position. If the user ignores the warning and want to change the layer, then always the existing layer resolution will be used for further changes. A further proposal: As long as the user doesn't save the project, it will keep the linking information of missed files. So if the user relinks the missing data later, any afterward changes will be executed for the relinked files. That would improve the work with Affinity Photo a lot in my opinion. The developers could implement my idea as an additional option. There is no need to have just one way.
  19. Yes, but not by default embedded. The user has still to know there are linked layers missing and can update them, if the source path is known or the files are existing. Regular embedded layers would expand the Affinity project file size, because they're normally embedded in the origin file. My wish is to keep the linking functionality but don't destroy the visibile results by pixelizing them, like it is now.
  20. Feature request for Affinity Photo: Embed changed linked files until an update by user Situation: If you load a project file, then all missed linked files will be displayed pixelized. This is extremly contra productive. Better: To avoid missed linked files please embed the visible result into the Affinity project file. If there are files missing, you can still inform the user, but please don't destroy the implemented material by pixelizing it. This solution would secure the use of the files by 3rd parties, without having the original assets. You don't need to save the original file or filesize, just the edited result is all an user need. Seeing the result, even if you don't have the linked material is better, than destroying the project by showing pixelized results. This is the way how it works in Adobe Photoshop and a much better solution, than currently in Affinity Photo. Do you know, what I mean?
  21. Completely agree. Editing alpha channels/masks in Affinity Photo is still a no go, if you come from Photoshop. Sorry for this, but why the hell I can't just edit an alpha channel like a regular pixel channel?! And I don't mean to paint something with a brush in the alpha/mask. I mean functions like changing color levels, curves or adding blur... Things that works like a charm in Adobe Photoshop. Don't misunderstand me: I like Affinity Photo a lot and try to work in this tools as much as possible. But alpha editing is still one thing that really su...s. Or I didn't understand until today, how Affnitys solution is better. What solution it ever is, to change levels in alpha channels in some seconds. 😪
×
×
  • 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.