chillywilly

Cool idea. In this case I was designing a logo, so I needed it to be vector.

Thank you @Wosven. Your effect turned out decently, and you and @Hens have shown me that in a pinch there's a lot I can do with these techniques. There's clearly a gap in functionality because true perspective shifts and warp effects offer a level of precision that look more "real." At least now I understand what Designer has to offer in the current state.

Thanks for showing me the Power Duplicate trick! That's a great one.

Wow, thank you @Wosven! I take it that you used the same techniques as Hen? The techniques Hen showed are really nice for emulating perspective changes with groups of lines, but they don't adjust vector groups with perspective calculations. You are showing a perspective shift in the purple line art. I'd love to hear how you accomplished that in Designer.

Oh I see. I'll have to suffer being reminded, every time I have a question, that I didn't pay the Adobe price when I bought this product. What lunacy.

Awesome! What was that shortcut you used at 0:27 to replicate object and distance? This was so helpful. Exactly what I needed to see.

@Hens Thank you for sharing your illustration, and thanks for taking the time to experiment with the challenge. I'm curious and would love to hear about your process. Obviously what you've got is quick and dirty, but you did something I don't know how to do in Designer. I see in the History panel that you used a Twirl effect. Are you working in Publisher? I still have a lot to learn about how these apps work together, and Publisher is one I haven't even opened yet.

Yes. I want Adobe functionality at Affinity prices. Who doesn't? I want it bad enough that when I read the Affinity advertising, I thought someone had done it. Clearly I'm not the only one who thought this was the promise. I'm not mad about what I paid for Affinity, but if it doesn't allow me to cancel my Adobe subscription then I've wasted my time, energy, and also money. I only mentioned a comparison to Adobe because I feel shut down when I inquired about a feature I was seeking. I don't care if I paid less for Affinity. I expect that the software will allow me to create the illustrations I desire. It makes that promise pretty clearly. So I really don't ever want to hear about how I paid less. Furthermore, I acknowledge that I still have a lot to learn about the Affinity products. I am quite sure there are features I haven't uncovered or don't understand. Although I am sometimes feeling stress, I don't intend to bash Affinity for not being what I hoped. I come to the forum seeking solutions because I need to get work done. I'm glad to hear that you're happy, and I agree with your suggestion about using the software, finding out what it does, and giving feedback. I do the "finding out" by experimenting with the software, reading the documentation, watching video tutorials, and asking questions in the forum. So far I have it seems that Affinity might not be what I wanted it to be right now, but I'm still not sure what Serif's stance is on their vision for the future. If they intend for this to compete at the Adobe level, then I'm all in because I totally support this pricing model vs. the Adobe subscription plan. I will be willing to participate in conversations where users talk about the features they need and desire and present ideas. Maybe Affinity software will become even better than Adobe. Who knows? Maybe it already is in some ways. But if the attitude from Serif is like that of some of the users here, where "you get what you pay for" is the response when a need is expressed... then maybe this business model will never lead to a satisfactory experience for me, and I should just go back to the Adobe world now and stop wasting my time.

I have no need to express what I think other users need or want. If I did, I would question my motives. At this time, my goal is just to learn what is possible in the software, but it's good to know where to go for requesting features. Thank you. I did not feel supported. I just wanted to learn about the capabilities of the software, not debate whether an idea was worthwhile or justifiable based on the price I paid for the software.

Thank you again. I can see the benefit of using a symbol in certain applications. I'm curious to hear how Designer users would approach the challenge of creating perspective graphics with repeated elements like these: https://www.pinterest.co.kr/pin/298363544045457405/ https://creativemarket.com/Zaie/3606309-Digital-sound-wave-vector-banner https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/abstract-background-circles-curved-lines-symbolic-82489606

Please consider why you think you know what many users find useful and the possibility that you should really only speak for yourself. It seems to me that you're worried that someone else's feature request might trump one of yours or something along those lines. Do you patrol the Affinity forum hoping to direct questions to the features you would like to see implemented? How about you just let this be a place where people can ask questions of how to get things done and make requests. Thank you.

@R-C-R, do you speak for Affinity or are you a user? I want to know if the malodorous chip on your shoulder is representative of the attitude of Affinity. Affinity products are marketed as replacements for Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. I bought them because of this. A "price comparison" is not a satisfactory response. Affinty does things differently. I've had to relearn key modifiers and discover new ways of accomplishing tasks. When I hit a wall looking for a way to bend a group of rectangles, I thought maybe there was a way to grab multiple handles. It was honestly just an idea and a question. I never demanded anything, as R-C-R would have us believe. When GarryP expressed concern about the complexity of the task, I showed a video demonstration only to support the point that something like this is possible. Again, not a demand. I don't program this software, and if you are not programming the software I really don't think it's helpful to speak for Affinity. So maybe I can't grab multiple handles in Adobe Illustrator without a plugin, but I can warp multiple objects. I needed to get something done in a new piece of software, so I came to the forum to see if I could find a solution. I asked politely. I hope I'll be able to bring more questions to the forum without being confronted by the question police again.

That is a crap response, R-C-R.

Something like that would be so helpful. Thanks @firstdefence.

Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjzAojE8hyY

I'd love to learn more about how these filters work. Do you have any tutorials explaining the math filters?

Wow! I got what I wanted on my first try with a single click just using your HDR macro: Bright Highlights. I'll attach a screen capture showing what it does with the light source. Note that this file has no other adjustments. I just want to show your macro helped me retain the wall around the light source. It seems crazy, but I just could not achieve this any other way I've tried. Of course I still have some processing to do, but I can work with this!

Hi James. Thanks so much for response! I understand. It's just disorienting to be looking at an image on the screen that can't actually be represented in an SDR format. HDR merge with Tone Mapping unchecked is interesting. I haven't tried this before. I now see a medium tone pixel image layer in the Layers panel and a Sources panel with HDR on top of four sources. I tried the first suggestion with the Live Filter, and at first I was excited thinking it was doing exactly what I wanted, but then I realized that I was viewing the image with 32-bit Preview enabled. When I unchecked that, the image went back to looking just as blown out as it did with Tone Mapping. I've downloaded your macros. Thank you for sending those! I'll give them a try soon and let you know how it goes.

I was trying to curve a group of rectangles today. Is there a way to adjust the handles of more than one node at a time?

Unfortunately I'm not at liberty to share my client's photography. Do you have any general workflow advice on HDR processing? My client is doing bracketed interiors, and that means a huge dynamic range with overexposed artificial lighting in the shot. I made a new HDR merge from the original photos and during tone mapping I ticked the "SDR clamp" on and off to check the differences. Having this awareness I was able to get a better result, but I'm still really missing the "recovery" slider that I have used in Lightroom. It seems to pull down only those really blown out areas, and it does it gracefully. With tone mapping in Affinity Photo, I've tried the Highlights slider, and it's just not that great and handling these problems. Reducing exposure does a better job, but then I have to crank the brightness to the max, which at +25 is not nearly enough. I'd love to hear what others do with HDR/EDR interior photography.

Thank you! I thought I tried all the modifiers. Apparently not.

Nevermind. In Illustrator it's the pen tool, but in Designer it's the node tool that adds a point.

I'm going crazy trying to figure out how to add a single point to a rectangle that I have converted to a shape. I am using the pen tool and double-clicking on a line of the rectangle. It adds a point that just floats over the shape. What am I doing wrong?

As you'll guess, I'm new to working with HDR/EDR. The quick version is I need help understanding the best workflow to go from HDR to SDR output. The longer story is... I merged to HDR from five bracketed RAW images, and because I had checked the box I went straight into tone mapping. I created a pleasing result as viewed on my 2018 Macbook Pro. After applying the changes, I saved the Afphoto document and a layered TIFF file. I did not realize is that, by default, Affinity has Enable EDR turned on. So I made all my adjustments with the extra dynamic range of my Macbook's screen (a.k.a., 500 nits brightness, P3 color gamut) not realizing that I was working outside of the gamut of other screens. I want a JPG for the web, but I want it look like the image I see on the screen in front of me. It seems like this should be possible since I'm looking at it on a computer screen, but no — saving to JPG creates a file lacking all the detail in the highlights. The horror. I've since learned about the 32-bit Preview panel. My settings are still default: Enabled EDR, Exposure 0, Gamma 1, and ICC Display Transform on. I assigned the sRGB color profile to my image. (I know this makes the image slightly larger, but the color accuracy improvements are important to me.) When uncheck Enable EDR in the 32-bit Preview pane, the image on screen looks as bad as the exported JPG. The truth hurts, but at least now I can try to make it work. In Adobe Lightroom, there's a "Recovery" slider that does a great job of reigning in highlights and bringing back detail. I want that slider here. Curves and Levels aren't working too well for me. What do you suggest? The screenshot file looks like the JPG. On screen, however, I can see all the detail of the door. Nothing is blown out.

Yes. This is of critical importance. I want to use Shift to temporarily hold an aspect ratio. I want to use Option to hold the center point as I adjust the crop. I want the crop edges to stay within the boundary of the photo.