-
Posts
1,670 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by iconoclast
-
Mir ist nicht ganz klar was Du da machen willst. Wenn ich das richtig sehe hast Du eine weiß gefüllte Ebene und darüber eine Anpassungsebene "Umfärben", sowie anscheinend noch eine Schnellmaske (Quickmask), richtig? Auf der Schnellmaske ist es umgekehrt, da radiert man Maske mit Weiß und malt wieder etwas hinzu mit Schwarz. Aber was ist das Ziel vom Ganzen? Einfach nur ausprobieren? Dazu sei auf jeden Fall darauf hingewiesen, dass man Weiß nur umfärben kann wenn man es zuvor abgedunkelt und Schwarz nur wenn man es zuvor aufgehellt hat, wenn man also irgendein Grau draus gemacht hat. Schwarz ist halt wie Licht aus, und da sieht man dann keine Farben mehr und bei Weiß ist es im Prinzip ähnlich, nur dass sich alle Farben da gegenseitig aufheben. Nur mal als Einwurf, weil mir die Sache unklar ist. Vielleicht steh ich auch mal wieder nur auf dem Schlauch. Dann ignoriert mich einfach.
-
If it makes sense or not, you should be able to create a frame for example by using a selection, that you can fill on a separate layer on top. Or you could place your image in a document that is bigger than the image and use a separate layer with e.g. a white fill, as a kind of Passepartout or background. Or you could also use the shapes for it, with no fill, but a contour in the width of your choice. It depends a little bit on what you mean with "frame" and which method you prefer.
-
If you double click on the brush preset ( or click "More"), the Brush Editor opens. If you adjust the brush size there, it will stay the same, even if you select this brush preset later. If you want, duplicate the brush preset first, to also keep one with the original settings, and adjust the size of the duplicate. Sorry!
-
As far as I see, there should open a window for each of the filters of the plugin. Does anything appear in the task bar? Just for the case that you accidentally clicked it to get hidden behind Affinity's GUI. If this is not the point, did you try a restart of Photo? My only experiences with plugins in Photo are with the free G'MIC plugin. That works pretty good in Photo. But as far as I know, there is no warranty that all 8bf-plugins work with every image editing software.
-
The obvious difference between Layer 3 on side 2 and side 3 is that on side 2 there is a Shape Text Layer instead of a Rectangle. As far as I see, Publisher doesn't have Shape Text. I don't know what Shape Text is in InDesign, because I always worked with it in German language only. Maybe something similar to Artistic Text in Publisher? But for some reasons it seems to be called "Shape Text" even if you open it in Publisher. So there seem to be in fact reasonable differences between InDesign and Publisher that cause problems with this file. At least the way Publisher handles Layers is different to InDesign. Publisher is very layer based and creates new layers for every object, while I often didn't even need a second layer as I worked with InDesign. In InDesign all objects can be on only one layer.
-
If an image you inserted in Publisher has 300 PPI/DPI, you can see in the Ressource Management if you scaled it bigger than the original size. In that case it would be annotated with less than 300 PPI/DPI there. If the inserted image is scaled smaller, the PPI/DPI-value in the Ressource Managment will be more than 300. You find the Ressource Management in the Document menu. By the way, it should usually not be a problem to scale an image a little bit. But you should take care that the difference between the original size and the size you use it in Publisher is not too big.
-
What shall I say? I tested out many graphic apps during the last about fifteen years, beginning with Photoshop, Freehand and Quark XPress (during my apprenticeship), later CorelDraw, Illustrator, InDesign and Photo Plus, and also Open-Source-Software like GIMP, Krita, Inkscape and Scribus, and some Free- and Shareware too. About one and a half years ago I discovered the Affinity Apps. All those mentioned Apps are somehow similar, but also somehow different from each other. I don't think that they should all be the same. Of course I had to get used to all of those apps. But I'm really fine with Affinity at the moment. If you want to select something in your document, you can possibly better do that in the Layers Panel. As Affinity Apps are very layer oriented, this should work better. And instead of Ctrl+Z, you can use the History panel. It is very convenient, if you ask me. And as I recently found out, the History of Affinity Photo also remembers undone steps - even if you made some new steps in the meantime. In that case a different symbol appears on the right side of the step you went back to. Instead of the camera symbol. if you click on that symbol, you will get the lost steps back. And you can save the history with the Affinity-File in every Affinity App. Those are things you will not find in Adobe Apps. So you see, Affinity is different, but it also has its advantages. I don't know if there will be new versions in the next time.
-
Firebolt and Smoke (Intensity Brushes for Affinity Design)
iconoclast replied to LassiP's topic in Resources
Hi LassiP! Looks good, thanx for sharing it! I will try it out. -
OK, dann lag ich wohl falsch. So eine Sperre wüsste ich jetzt auch nicht. Aber wenn denn skaliert werden muss, kann man zumindest leicht feststellen ob zu hoch skaliert wurde. In der Ressourcenverwaltung kann man ja sehen ob die relative Auflösung kleiner geworden ist als 300 PPI. Ist das der Fall, skaliert man halt wieder etwas runter. Sollte kein allzu großes Problem sein. Mit dem Transformationsfenster könnte man das betreffende Bild ja auch leicht wieder auf 100% bringen wenn ich mich nicht irre.
-
Schon richtig, mit APhoto war ich auf dem falschen Dampfer. Vielleicht gar nicht so schlimm, weil andren dieser Sachverhalt ja offenbar auch nicht klar war. Zu Publisher: Dass die Bilder da eine andere Auflösung haben können als das Dokument bedeutet natürlich keine Entwarnung, denn, wie ich schon sagte, Pixel bleiben Pixel, und wenn man ein Pixelbild skaliert leidet die Qualität - auch in Publisher. Daher sollte man das immer nur in geringem Maße machen, wenn es darum geht ein Bild ins Layout einzupassen. Besser wäre es aber in puncto Qualität, wenn das Bild die gleiche Auflösung hätte. Man sieht das ja auch in der Ressourcenverwaltung, wo sich dann die relative Auflösung entsprechend verändert. Das sollte sich in Maßen halten. Gerade in Layouts sollte man nicht zu sehr herumschlampen.
-
Ich erkläre das der Einfachheit mal schnell auf Deutsch, weil ich keine Zeit habe. Es gibt die Checkbox "Resample" und das gleichnamige Menü. Die Checkbox bewirkt, wenn sie angehakt ist, dass das Pixelbild vergrößert oder verkleinert werden kann. In dem Fall werden beim Verkleinern Pixel des Bildes entfernt, es hat danach also weniger, beim Vergrößern werden welche hinzu gerechnet. Nun sind Pixel ja jeweils einfarbige Quadrate. Welche Farben sollen die neuen Pixel haben? Darüber bestimmt das Menü "Resample", das in anderen Programmen auch schonmal "Interpolation" heißt. Da gibt es die Möglichkeit, dass die neuen Pixel einfach nur die Farben der ursprünglichen Pixel bekomen können, was dann eine Verpixelung des Bildes bewirkt. Ich bin mir nicht sicher, aber das wird wahrscheinlich "Nearest Neighbour" sein. Oder es gibt diese Option in Affinity nicht. Bei den anderen Optionen werden Übergangsfarben zwischen benachbarten Pixelfarben errechnet, was zu einer mindestens leichten Unschärfe führt. Ohne Qualitätsverluste geht Skalieren aber nicht. Entfernt man den Haken der Checkbox, kann man die relative Auflösung verändern, das heißt, dass die Auflösung in PPI/DPI relativ zu den Kantenmaßen in Inch oder Millimeter größer oder kleiner wird, während diese wiederum kleiner oder größer werden. Das ist dazu da die Druckauflösung einzustellen. Für Bildschirmdarstellungen hat die relative Auflösung keine Beduetung, soweit ich weiß. Die Anzahl der Pixel des Bildes ändert sich dabei nicht. Weshalb die Eingabefelder beim Enthaken auch ausgegraut werden. Und in welchem Programm man das macht dürfte auch egal sein, denn Pixel bleiben Pixel., und von ihrer Anzahl hängt die Bildqualität ab. Das es hier um Publisher geht hatte ich allerdings übersehen.
-
Without Resampling, an image with e.g. 1920 pixels x 1080 pixels always stays an image with 1920 pixels x 1080 pixels, no matter what you do with the relative resolution (DPI/PPI) or the sizes in analog dimensional units. You use this for converting images in printable resolutions. With Resampling you can up- and downscale digital images. By using a Resampling method like Bicubic or Lanczos you can smooth down the inevitable loss of quality a bit, that always is a consequence of scaling pixel images.
-
Pixel images consist of pixels (as the name says). Pixel don't have a fixed size. The size of pixels appearing on screen depends on the resolution of the screen they are displayed on (note that the zoom only zooms the preview, not the pixels). To translate the size and resolution of a pixel image from the cyber world into the real (analog) world, e.g. for print, the image file needs the information how big the single pixels shall be. So you need an additional value: the relative resolution defined in Pixels per Inch (PPI, often incorrectly called "DPI", but that is, properly speaking, not the same, because it means the resolution of a raster in print - "Dots" are the single points of the raster). The standard-PPI for printing is 300 PPI. To convert a relative resolution of a pixel image to another relative resolution without changing the quantity of pixels (what would always harm the quality, at least a bit), you can change the PPI/DPI to e.g. 300 - without Resampling (Resampling means that new pixels will be added if you upscale up or pixels will be removed if you downscale the image/layer). So uncheck the Checkbox "Resample" in this case. Without Resampling, the quantity of pixels stays the same, but the size of the image in Inches, mm or cm changes - relative to the change of the relative resolution value. Higher resolution = smaller size of the analog image and vice versa. So you should take care that the image you are planning to print after image editing needs to have a usable size right from the start. Too small images will not have the best quality, even if you upscale them. If you have no choice and need to scale anyway, you can lessen the loss of quality by using a Resampling method like Bicubic or Lanczos. Roughly said, the nearer you get to the bottom of the Resample menu, the better is the Resampling method. So check the checkbox "Resample" in that case and change the size in pixels. Usually, depending on the Resampling Mode you use, either the image will become more pixelated (Nearest Neighbour), at least a bit, or it will become more blurry (the other ones). You can of course improve it a bit afterwards by using a sharpening filter. Hope this is comprehensible. My English is not very good.
-
Without warranty, because I haven't ever tested it myself, but you could take a look at Synfig Studio, which is a free vector based animation software. I don't know if it will import Affinity files, don't really think so, but maybe it somehow helps you. I have it installed on my Linux Laptop, but I never needed it. You can download it for Windows too. But I don't know if there are also versions for Mac.
-
I have the new stable version of Krita installed on my desktop pc (will take a look tomorrow). But I have never really checked out its animation capabilities. Also because there is a feature called "Onion Skins" which I still don't know what it is and what it does. Krita has a timeline since some years ago, but to really create an animation out off what you tinkered, you needed an extern app like VirtualDub, because Krita didn't support GIF-Animation-Files. I don't know if this has changed in the meantime.
