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.

There are people for whom ACR is their only raw convertor and who use no DAM software. They simply copy the raw files from their memory cards to their hard drive. For that reason I think it's important for AP to have its ACR equivalent. This will become particularly relevant if AP eventually takes on some of the current features of ACR/PS. In particular I'm thinking about: Storing just the develop settings (side car files for example) so that it is possible to develop images without the need to convert them all to .afphoto files which are necessarily very large files by comparison. Many people don't take most of their images into PS and so they don't need to store psd files as well as raw. There is currently no equivalent workflow for AP. The ability to insert the develop settings as a layer so that they can be modified after the image has been edited in the photo persona.

Some people (not me) don't use a DAM and so need a raw convertor. I know a lot of professional photographers who use a Bridge/ACR/PS workflow so I suppose the Develop Persona is necessary as a piece of that puzzle. What AP still lacks is a Bridge equivalent.

Lock, Have you tried using Adobe's DNG convertor? If that supports your camera then convert your raw files to dng and I think AP will probably support them - although I haven't tried it.

Tethering, in applications like Lightroom, allows you to control the camera configuration from the computer, view the live image on screen and take the shot. The file is then immediately uploaded into the programme for editing. It's arguably more appropriate for a DAM programme rather than a photo editor like AP.

This is just a guess but I suspect Serif is just being progressive. The idea of 3 a character file extensions harks back to the memory/storage limitations of very early microcomputers where the standard was 8.3, that is, file names of no more than 8 characters followed by a 3 character extension. Modern operating system long ago ditched the 8 character name limitation but, for some reason, the 3 character extension has lived an artificially long life. Also, 3 characters is very limiting in terms of creating a unique file type identifier that is also mnemonically meaningful. The extensions .ade and .aph, for example, have already been used by other software.

So, as I had assumed, it's not an intellectual property issue but an unknown file structure that would have to be reverse engineered? I can see why users would see AI export as a very valuable asset for AD to have. However, having myself reverse engineered file formats (that were far, far less complex than I imagine AI would be) I suspect that putting that effort into AD would mean substantially holding back the development of other functionality in both AD and AP (as they seem to be largely integrated code bases). It's a developers call but I can certainly see why they have chosen not to support AI export. Remember that every time the AI format is changed or augmented by Adobe Serif would have to make another reverse engineering effort that, if it failed, would render all previous efforts essentially worthless.

Leigh, When Tony says the AI format is "private" is he saying there is some intellectual property limitation on its use or just that the format is not published and reverse engineering would be too difficult?

You need the latest beta. Go to the beta test forum to download it.

My understanding is that, in PS, fill opacity affects the layer but not the layer effects, outer glow for example. In AP, if you add an effect like outer glow the dialogue box for the effect has a fill opacity slider that will control the opacity of the layer but not the effect. I don't know if this is equivalent but it might be worth investigating.

I'm all in favour of giving people the options they want but my point is that bright, colourful, high-contrast displays are the enemy of good colour management. I'm not a graphic designer but I can see why a paper white background might be useful. However, that's a canvas rather than UI issue. If you want to see your graphics on a white background then expand the canvas and drop an appropriate fill layer underneath. The UI, on the other hand, should be as unobtrusive as possible - by default at least. If you are finding that the AP display has too little contrast to be clear then, unless you have a vision problem (which is a whole other issue), it's almost certainly a problem with your working environment. In that case the best practice is to calibrate your monitor for the level and colour temperature of the ambient light. If you work day and night it may be necessary to have two separate monitor profiles.