nickbatz
-
Posts
482 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nickbatz
-
-
I'd suggest trying it actual size without scaling.
Or am I missing something? And does Brother have an update for the macOS version you're using?
As an aside - not that I suggest running out and buying things as the first solution - there's a $20 program called Create Booklet that makes this very easy. But you could run into the same problem with the Mac driver.
-
I think it's both. Photography isn't always literal either.
-
11 minutes ago, thomaso said:
But then it is even more useful to describe an expected result or wanted modification with unambiguous words, while a comparison like this…
Hopefully I've described it more clearly in subsequent posts?
The basic point is that enlarging what's not in the photo (leaving aside that it is in this example!) doesn't produce details that aren't in it.
Also, sorry for getting annoyed at you. I suspect a subtle language issue, but maybe I'm wrong. (And given how basic my German is... )
-
Quote
There is no "look the same" in this case. Something larger will either show more details or will appear missing details.
It will appear missing details. The outlines of the shapes and general white-ish vs. background is the goal, and it's how the photo appears before you zoom in microscopically.
I do get what you're saying about zooming in on pixels, though.
QuoteYou might get closer to the wanted result if you create a new photo with a lot higher resolution.
You're right. The iPhone 12 Pro Max camera res is 72 DPI in regular JPEG mode and I believe 90-something in ProRAW. Maybe they'll raise that in the 15, or better yet increase the optical zoom resolution. If so, that'll be a reason to upgrade.
Unfortunately a "real" DSLR camera with higher resolution wouldn't work for me, because I rely on having a very good camera with me in my pocket all the time - in other words I can't just go out and shoot pictures, because I'd be very unlikely to find useful things to photograph. Other than the issue in this thread, the quality of the photos is less important than it would be if I were taking "traditional" photos.
...on the other hand I would get plenty of use from a professional DLSR too, just not for art.
-
17 minutes ago, Revanian said:
the current print dialog options seem to have removed this Color Matching/ColorSync option.
That's cruel and unusual. I wonder why they'd do that.
-
Emphasis: as I said, this photo is just a starting point for what I do.
After three minutes in Affinity Photo it won't look anything like that photograph (or for that matter like any photograph). I'm not just trying to edit it and print it out, in fact I'll only use parts of it.
-
Just now, thomaso said:
I think this is a misunderstanding which results from the fact that we (the human) are able to technically zoom-in but our biological eyes never can. ( I guess no animal can, right?). Accordingly it doesn't make much sense to expect a certain look when zooming in or to feel a zoomed view as right or wrong with a specific amount of details.
As mentioned before, just imagine a birds view on green grassland. Zooming in as photo is something fully different than zooming in in real life. The latter brings you closer to the single straws and finally to the brown ground, means to a fully different motive and reality – while the photo doesn't even know about the single straws and the ground but the pixel and resolution only.
So, for your goal you can simulate only – and just feel it look correct.
Yes. The eye is not the same as a camera, no question (analogy: the ear is very different from a microphone).
-
Not like that, no - although that's another effect that can be useful.
What I want is for it to look the same bigger as it does smaller.
-
32 minutes ago, Revanian said:
Yes, I agree about ICC profiles and color management in general. I am familiar with this, but I see that the ColorSync option seems to no longer exist when printing in Ventura. I'm using a Canon TS8220, multifunction printer presently with Canon Pro Platinum photo paper.
There's a ColorSync utility, but it looks like it's only for display profiles.
I don't know whether this is helpful: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254689339
-
There's a side issue: iPhone cameras can oversharpen images. There's no way to turn off the "computational photography" - which is amazing 95% of the time and wrong the other 5%.
I use a third-party app called Halide, but often I don't have time to fool around with it and just use the regular camera.
But that's just a tangent.
-
9 minutes ago, thomaso said:
Nevertheless, any scaling / resizing affects the entire image in one same way and does not distinguish between small or large details with high or low contrast but just considers pixel "size" (resolution).
That's what makes it a brain teaser.
If you were to take a picture of the picture (zoomed out as in the original, which is what you see in real life), the unwanted details wouldn't be there if you made it bigger - it would just be a bigger version of the picture without the details. In other words, it wouldn't enlarge what isn't there.
And in fact that may be an approach to try: scan or photograph the photograph.
-
13 minutes ago, John Rostron said:
Like others, I'm not too sure what the OP wants. However I would suggest using Resize Document with Resampling and trying the various rescaling algorithms.
John
I am sure what he wants, and unfortunately resizing the document with resampling isn't the answer. That's something I do automatically before I start working with pictures anyway.
However, that triggers a synapse: what happens if you resize without resampling? Will try and report back for those waiting with bated breath.
UPDATE: No, it just leaves it more pixellated.
In any case, there's no obvious way to explain it than to repeat what I wrote above: "What I’m getting at is that there’s a difference between enlarging a small picture that doesn’t have (unwanted) detail and zooming in on a file that has the detail."
If you look at that picture above, it looks great at the original size, but when you zoom in on the file you see all kinds of uglies. This is just one example of something I encounter quite a lot.
-
-
I’m trying to figure out a way to block thomaso and RC-R. One day people will learn how rude it is saying “we need,” as if there’s a group that only they are members of and I’m not.
This is not a response to them:
What I’m getting at is that there’s a difference between enlarging a small picture that doesn’t have (unwanted) detail and zooming in on a file that has the detail.
-
Notice that you don't see all the brown inside the white blotches in the first picture, but in the second the whole effect dissipates.
Obviously, doing anything other than zooming in wouldn't illustrate my point, would it? This isn't a composition, it's an example of a raw (not RAW) photo I posted to explain what I'm asking.
Really, it's absolutely fine if you don't know the answer. I don't either.
-
I'm a little farther along in the process, but here's my thread on the same subject. Spoiler: I ended up going with the Xencelabs medium (with the remote control thing). And so far I don't know whether I like working with tablets period. Will have to live with it for a while.
-
Another way of putting it: I want it to look like it does when zooming in the computer screen rather than the pixels.
So the answer is a screenshot... nah.
-
But there's all kinds of texture detail I want to get rid of when I make it bigger (in this case - sometimes I do want it).
I'd appreciate ideas from the brain trust about how to do that without just using the paintbrush (which would be tedious).
The pic here is what I mean - zoomed in it looks like something you don't want to get on your clothes. It is blurry, of course, but ignore that - the issue is that I want to maintain the airplane view perspective when making it bigger.
TIA
-
This is a puzzle I've been trying to figure out for a while.
Check out the first picture, for example. If you look at it sized between a thumbnail and maybe 10"x13" (whatever it is), it looks fab - the kind of abstract photo I'd use parts of as the starting point for one of my pictures.
But (see next post)....
-
5 minutes ago, Revanian said:
trying to keep everything within AP2.
I'm not suggesting you run out and buy anything, but at least on macOS (don't know about Windows) the built-in print driver is very crude and doesn't automatically know about things like ICC profiles for the printer/paper combination you're using. There is a way to make it use ICC profiles, but I forget how to do that (and don't care, because when I use it, I'm not printing photos, just everyday things on a different printer).
Color management - starting with ICC profiles - are a thousand times more important than whether you resample when resizing.
What printer are you using?
-
I let Canon Pro Print & Layout (printing program that comes with several Canon Pro-xxxx series photo printers) scale exported TIFFs and have found that to work very well, but the first thing I do in Affinity Photo is resize the document to 300 DPI using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanczos_resampling.
My understanding is that resampling is the best way to resize pictures. I forget why I chose Lanczos, but at the time there was a reason.
Also, what program are you using to print?
-
Preliminary update, after setting up the Xencelabs tablet and trying it briefly.
General comment: it's going to take some getting used to, and I'm not even sure I'm going to like working with any pen tablet. But the Xencelabs one is trivial to set up and seems to be very good. (The one thing I didn't try to get working yet is pressure sensitivity - I hope that works.)
The first thing to get used to is it not behaving like a regular mouse. If you want to reach a menu item, for example, pointing and clicking is very awkward - at least it is so far. And it's not all that easy to control the pen's direction, for example if you're writing.
I think I like the Quickkeys remote thing, especially the wheel for adjusting the tool size. Hopefully I can program it to adjust the softness as well.
What I wish is that you could hold a clutch key and have it accelerate and track like a regular mouse when it's not touching the drawing surface, so you don't have to move so far and put your hand in an uncomfortable position when you're not actively drawing. That's what I found most frustrating, although I'm also not sold on the tablet-to-picture scaling either.
But this is after a few minutes. We'll see whether it grows on me.
-
EUREKA! Why this is happening is anyone's guess, but here it is. And why did I put a mask there? I must have had a reason, but who knows what it was.
Thanks again.
-
56 minutes ago, thomaso said:
How many do we see in your screenshots? – Vertical stripes could be a halftone filter. Below 1 vertical, 1 horizontal.
About 25 layers, although I probably Merged Visible along the way. But that's interesting. Thanks.
Mac mini M2 (non-pro) or MacBook Pro M2?
in Affinity on Desktop Questions (macOS and Windows)
Posted
I haven't added it up with these machines, but in general Apple prices laptops about $1000 more than the equivalent desktop.
The power is going to be effectively the same, so it comes down to whether you want a laptop. I personally wouldn't want to work on a small laptop screen all day long.
You might consider maxing out the RAM. Affinity Photo can make good use of it, especially if you have more than one picture open, if you work at 300 DPI, etc.