iconoclast

Yes, I saw this just some minutes ago. I disregarded the "Linear" item. Without this it doesn't work. Verry helpful conversation. Thanks a lot!

No, the point is, that in the workflow of the tutorial the curve layer ist grouped with the Brightness/Contrast layer. So the effect is only attached to this layer, not the background. But this thread still keeps me thinking, because, as I just saw, in fact I couldn't darken a pure white pixel layer to grey in Affinity Photo. But to lighten a black one worked. Even in a different way as accustomed from other programs. This is totally new to me, and I don't know why this doesn't work. Think it logically should. Will have to explore a little more, I think. Edit: Ah, now I understand your hint about the "Linear" item. Just regarded it. Thanks, that was helpful!

To be honest, there are some confusing points in this workflow. So you're absolutely okay. I was just fiddling a bit, how I would make it and attached the result as a sample here. Just a verry, verry rough sketch, far from perfect. Hope it may help somehow.

This is not true. Of course you can change the Brightness of a black or a white layer. You can lighten a black one to grey, and you can even darken a white one to grey. But I think that isn't the problem here. The first thing is, that I don't understand why Olivio applies the Brightness/Contrast-Filter to the lightbeam. That doesn't make sense to me. Then, the second thing - and that seems to be the verry important point in this case - the cutted lightbeam results of that the lightbeam layer in Affinity iPad Students image is still a curve, as he added it to the Brighness/Contrast-Filter-Layer, while Olivio first rasterized the layer. In fact, if I use a curve layer, I get the same issue as Affinity iPad Student. If I use a rasterized (Pixel-) layer, it works. I think it has to do with the "Mask below" fuction, wich in Affinity iPad Students image only works with the "Mega Ship", because these two layers are grouped, while the background layer isn't part of the group. But I still don't know why Olivio uses the Brightness/Contrast-Filter. It would be more logical to adjust the strength of the lightbeam with the opacity slider in the layers panel, I think.

In fact it is realistic behaviour that lightbeams will only be visible where something reflects (or breaks/refracts) the light. In absolute clear air or vacuum, you wouldn't see a lightbeam. There must be something like fog or dust to make the lightbeam visible. But I am not sure if this explains this certain problem. Have you also dragged the Contrast slider to the right?. Olivio said in his tutorial, that he didn't. In fact it darkens the lightbeam. But it doesn't let it disappear completely. Maybe it helps a little to decrease the contrast? Edit: One annotation: Blend modes always work from the top to the layers below. If the bottom layer has a blend mode, it will not have any effect. Every blend mode needs at least one layer below to be exposed to.

You're right, in Affinity it is called "Blend Mode". There are blend mode menus on different places. For example in the "Brightness/Contrast" panel (on the right side, at the bottom). And in the Desktop version of Affinity there are even blend modes at the top of the layers panel (that was what I meant with "Layer Modes"). Don't know where the are in the iPad version. These verry different Modes can manipulate how the content of a layer will be exposed to the background. Some modes lighten the area they are covering, some darken it, some invert its value, add its saturation to the background and so on. So a blend mode could even be the cause for that your lightbeam appears on the lighter background while it totally gets absorbed from the black background. This would not happen this way in Olivio's tut, because he has a different background. Can't see any other possible reason at the moment. I reckon, if you move your lightbeam vertical, it will even be cutted at the top of the megaship. So it must have to do with the black background, I think.

Hi Affinity iPad Student! Have you applied a mixmode or layer mode? This could be the reason why your lightbeam interacts so much different to the black area below the violett object.

Yes, that is important: In PHOTO, intensity brushes have to be black textures on transparent ground, in DESIGNER, textured intensity brushes have to be white textures on black ground. There are even some other differences. In Designer, brushheads can't overlap each other, for example. There are much less options to adjust the behaviour of the brush than in Photo.

Hi Etostudio! You are talking about Affinity Photo, right? Are you sure that it is only a white bar? Have you tried to change the spacing (doubleclick on your new brush and drag the slider "Spacing" in the now opened adjustment ("Brush Editing") panel to the right)? The colours of image brushes can't be changed. This is normal.

There will always appear the options related to the tool that is actually selected. Only if one of the two text tools (Artistic Text Tool and Frame Text Tool) is chosen, the text options will appear there.

"Kerning" is the distance between two individual characters (in germany we call it "Unterschneidung"). It is the first item on the "Character" panel in Publisher, under "Positioning and Transform". The second one is "Tracking" - the distance between all characters of a text box ("Zeichenabstand" in german). The term for the distance between words, I think, is "Spacing" ("Wortabstand"). But in this case I am not sure. But a well-intended hint about "Spacing": don't use it! Because it is banned by the "Me too"-movement, as I heard. 😉

You're welcome! Here is an additional link to some more Sanborn Maps. Some of them are really amazing, I think. And they were hand drawn/engraved. On the Heritage Webside you will find a lot more inspiration (and fonts, assets and illustrations to buy). And there are also instructions how to use that stuff to create cool designs. I really love that stuff. My best wishes for your project!

I'm not sure too. But it seems that he is confused about the difference between the document's and the layer's size, as he said in his first sentence. I don't know what he exactly did with that image before, but that layers have a different size than their image is not unusual.

Hi Baron7! I think you are not asking for the fonts, but for the attached deco-assets, right? I also bought that fine stuff, and I think you have to handle the assets like image objects that you can store in your Assets Panel ( I did it in Publisher) and then drag it from there to your document and place it there as you need it. It's a lot of fiddling that needs some exercise, but you can do nice things with it. Some days ago I found a webside with verry nice samples of design of that kind: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3974dm.g3974dm_g000321888/?sp=1 By the way, you can even download some cool illustration stuff from Tobias Saul for free: https://www.heritagetype.com/pages/free-vintage-illustrations As an Inspiration.

...or even the Crop Tool. I'm not sure about what causes this problem. That the layer is so much bigger than the isolated lady's head may depend on some nearly invisible pixels that are left around. That the image size is bigger than the layer may be somehow caused by the non-destructive resizing of Affinity. In case of my examples above, the size of the image is caused by the document size I created the image in Designer. The layer size depends on the size of the vector object.

You could for example subtract the eraser layers from the forms. To be honest, I would have made it all a little different. You don't need so many layers. As far as I see the logo (without the text) could be composed outoff seven elements = seven layers: the outer circle, the background-gradient, the left hill, the right hill, the upper blue wave, the other blue wave below and the green area at the bottom. Less layers also means less error sources. And it shouldn't be verry difficult to drraw that forms. Even because you can use duplicates of some of the forms to cut the others by subtracting. I think that would result in cleaner design and a flawless svg.

A verry good software to create GIF-Animations is GIMP. Though it has no timeline. But you don't really need a timeline to create GIF-Animations. The frames of the animation are the layers. It is less like a video clip, but more like a flicker book. Another solution could be Krita, that even has a timeline, but I am not experienced in making GIF-Animations with it. Edit: One additional annotation: GIF-Animations are possibly a little bit outdated (only 256 colours). You can also animate with PNG-Animations - in a better quality. And even the new Webp-format can be used for animations, as far as I know.

Hi once2work! Possibly in your Downloads folder? There is no spezial direction for LUTs in the Affinity inastallation, as far as I know. You can load LUTs from everywhere.

It's the layer "Eraser for LtGreen" (sublayer of the "LtGreen Hill Group"), that causes the red line, because the stroke is set to red. Can't see what is the problem with the white line, but maybe it will work if you expand the stroke (Menu "Layer" > "Expand Stroke").

OK, didn't think about that it's possibly a font that I haven't installed on my computer. Tim should have vecttorized the text to prevent this misunderstanding. But it is not so important for this thread. Sorry!

Just an annotation: this overlapping text ("Little Hills") doesn't work verry well. It's obviously intended this way, but it is not easy to read and looks a little messy. Wouldn't do that.

Seems that you are right. This is something new to me. I used to create clipping pathes for such things. But this could explain your problem. Possibly there are some semi-opaque pixels on the edges of your image that make the layer so much bigger than the image object (the young lady).

I have the same on the attached document, which also is a png. It is an image I made in Designer. Could it be possible that PNGs made in Affinity are able to save clipping pathes? That could possibly explain what is happening here. Edit: In my case, the PNG definitely has a clipping path, as you can see on the second screenshot, I made of the certain image, placed in Publisher.

Hi Walt! Thanks again, that's interesting. Thought it would only be an upgrade offer, like other software providers offer to their customers. I will buy my next versions at the Affinity Store anyway.

You mean a launch offer for customers of Affinity? I reckon that this will not be valid if you bought your Affinity Software on the Micrsosoft or Apple Store (what isn't a good idea anyway, as I experienced), right?