coranda

You should be able to do it the same in AP as Photoshop. Select the expanded canvas region, go to the Edit menu and choose Fill... From the options in the dialogue box select "Inpainting".

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly but is this what you're looking for? https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/11608-digital-projected-images-3-pixel-white-border/

Gary, Can you be more specific about your problem. Affinity Photo is so much more advanced than Pixelmator that I find it hard to understand what you find is missing. As far as I'm aware Pixelmator, for all its charms, still doesn't even have channels which makes it next to useless for serious image editing.

Is the black layer you have created a pixel layer or a fill layer?

Can you give us more details of what you have tried. I am not having any problems moving live filters in and out of nesting. EDIT: My apologies, I've just realised you're talking about the beta and not the MAS release. Yes, you're right, nested filters are no longer dragable.

Yes, that's on the roadmap but I'm also not sure what that means. Most raw adjustments (in raw convertors) are actually made after raw conversion, which is why it's possible to load jpegs and tiffs etc. into ACR. So, I'm not sure whether Serif are planning to follow the PS model and make the raw processor just another adjustment layer or whether they will leave raw processing as the first stage but allow you to go back and change the raw processor parameters and have that ripple through to all of the post raw processes that have been made in the photo persona. Both approaches would probably be useful.

Raw conversion is an essential first step in processing any digital image (whether in camera or in post processing) because without raw conversion there really isn't an image in the sense that most users expect. All a raw convertor really needs to provide is: - demosaicing - gamma correction - exposure adjustment Modern raw convertors offer all sorts of options that, arguably, are not a good idea because best practice is to use exposure control to recover highlight details and do nothing else in the raw conversion. Subsequent processing requires features not available in raw conversion - in particular, double processing. However, that approach means turning every image into a tiff/psd type file which requires a substantial amount of storage space. So, in an ideal world, raw convertors would have nothing more than an exposure slider for highlight recovery. In practice, when you have hundreds/thousands of images to process, it's often more convenient to completely process most of them in a raw convertor like ACR and reserve PS/AP for those special images you want to extract the most from. The problem with AP is that its raw convertor must convert all processed images into separate, large files. ACR makes it possible to store all of the processing in small sidecar files. So what I'm basically saying is that it can be advantageous to have a very capable raw convertor that avoids the need to use PS if it gives you an advantage in terms of compact storage of the raw processing. But, if the ultimate intention is to load the image into PS/AP for further processing, the raw convertor should have nothing more than a single exposure slider and all other processing should be in PS/AP - which may include offering the traditional raw processing options as an adjustment layer the way PS does.

I'm not being flippant here but it seems to me that the easiest way to do this is to take a photograph of a torn piece of paper and composite it in.

Herbert is right, there's no substitute for a built in chromakey plugin. They include defringing tools because it's such a common problem. The issue is whether or or not it has the resolution you need. If you're processing 50 (or even 20) megapixel images I'm not sure how many video editors can handle that.

Green fringes are very common with green screen images particularly on hair. In the case of hair it's usually because the screen is partially visible through the hair. On other parts of the body it can be caused by the lighting setup. There is often lots of green light reflecting off the screen and bouncing around the room. Have you tried. Using the de-fringing filter?

In AP soft proofing is an adjustment layer. Add one on top of your layers and select a profile in the dialogue for the adjustment.

If you go to Preferences... in iPhoto, on the Advanced tab, there is an option to edit in another application. I haven't tried it (I don't use iPhoto) but it might be worth playing with.

Lock, The jpeg you get from your camera will be heavily processed and designed to look, at least superficially, good. Most raw convertors I've used seem to do some default processing to also make most images look good, AP for example has, by default, the assistant turned on and so does some tonal correction. My pet gripe is that Lightroom performs highlight recovery by default which can't be turned off. Personally, I find this annoying as I'd rather have a minimalist conversion and hence have full control over post processing. I don't use the raw convertor in AP for two reasons: It is still a relatively new product with a number of shortcomings. Affinity, to their credit, acknowledge that they have work to do and intend to improve it. But most importantly, AP's raw convertor cannot save your conversion settings in a space efficient manner but needs to save the whole, processed file as afphoto, tiff or some other format. These files are huge compared to the xmp sidecar files of ACR or the database entries of Lightroom and Aperture. If I'm creating a special image for printing then that overhead would be fine but if I take 500 shots of my grandsons playing cricket or granddaughters at calisthenics then I need a way to process raw files that isn't going to consume gigabytes of extra storage.

When you look at them in Bridge or Apple preview I'm pretty sure you are looking at the jpeg preview that your camera saved rather than processing the raw files themselves. What do they look like in a raw convertor like ACR or Aperture?

I was taught never to use the highlights slider in a raw convertor. Best practice, I'm told, is to use the exposure slider to recover highlights. This will likely make the shadows (and possibly mid-tones) too dark but that's a separate issue to be dealt with - usually with some form of manual or automated double processing.