Ldina

That's a good discussion on Hex and CMYK that @thomaso recommended. You can create an RGB document (I'd recommend using sRGB) and define your components using Hex codes (using the sliders). This will show you what your colors will look like an a typical sRGB monitor. Many colors will look different in CMYK, which is simply a fact of life we have to live with. The goal is to get as close as possible. If you need CMYK output, then, you will need to Export to CMYK and make sure you convert the colors to the proper CMYK document space. This will "dumb down" many of your bright RGB colors because CMYK inks simply cannot reproduce many vibrant RGB colors. The CMYK profile you choose can make a big difference, so ideally, your print provider or service should recommend an appropriate CMYK profile. To get an idea of how your colors will be impacted before Exporting, you can add a Soft Proof Adjustment Layer and set it to the proper CMYK profile. It's not 100% accurate, but ought to get you fairly close. Then, you can "tweak" your colors with the soft proof layer visible. Before Exporting to CMYK, be sure to hide the Soft Proof Adjustment layer. More information would help people guide you...Photo, Designer, Publisher? Printing to Press, an online digital provider, etc? What format do you need to supply? Is it critical to maintain vectors or is it okay to rasterize? A sample file would also be helpful.

@Mainecoon364 Copying shadows with feathered edges can be challenging. You could use the selection brush tool, then refine it, feather the edge, etc. Honestly, I'd probably use the Pen or Pencil tool to draw the outline of the shadow shape I want, which doesn't need to be super accurate since it will be very fuzzy along the edges. Blur it with a Destructive Gaussian blur (which will rasterize the vector layer), then add a mask and use the Gradient tool on the mask with a linear gradient to vary the opacity of the shadow as it becomes more distant from the model. Select a white to transparent gradient to control the falloff of the shadow. Finally adjust the opacity as desired. You can then edit the mask as desired. Here's an example done quickly and sloppily. You'd want to add some harder shadows under her one foot to "ground her" so she doesn't look like she's floating in the air. (which I didn't do here)

@KarinC For adding texture, I tend to use bitmap images (using different layer blend modes) the most, followed by procedural textures (but the PT filters tend to be confusing to many users). I probably use Lighting filters less than the first two. These methods give you a lot of flexibility in choosing the texture you want to add. One thing I didn't mention is you can also use a Live 'Add Noise' Filter, and you can also add noise to a fill color using the Color Panel (along with different layer blend modes). They do add noise texture, but I usually prefer the above methods. Here's a tutorial by Trent that may help. He also shows how you can use "Texture Brushes" to add noise, which is a nice technique.

You're doing quite well for only three weeks. Watch the official Affinity Tutorials for Photo, they're good. (Browse > Forums > Tutorials) Plenty of others on YouTube too. Yes, you can resize a selection with the Move tool. With. a pixel layer selected, if you make a selection and then select the move tool, whatever transformations you apply to that selection will affect the pixels on that layer directly (and destructively). So, if you move the selection, it will move the pixels and leave a hole in the pixel layer where you made your original selection. If you resize ithe selection by grabbing a corner or side, it will stretch those pixels and distort them. This affects your current layer, which many times you don't want. Of course, if you do this on an empty pixel layer, nothing will be modified because there's nothing there. Here's how to modify the selection with the Move Tool, without affecting the pixels on a pixel layer... Make your selection. Click on the Quick Mask Icon in the context toolbar (or use the keyboard shortcut "Q"). This will turn unselected pixels red, and your selected pixels will stay normal color. In Quick Mask mode, the program will know you want to modify the selection, NOT the pixels on that layer. NOW, select the Move Tool (keyboard shortcut "V"). You can now modify your selection, scale it, distort it, and you are ONLY modifying the selection, not the actual pixels on the layer. (But, as we've learned in this discussion, that will change dpi and have other potential consequences, so be aware of that.) Once you are happy with the selection, you can click "Q" again to return to the 'marching ants' and use your modified selection to create a mask, save the selection, copy and paste pixels, or whatever. Also, with a selection active, you can make other modifications to the selection from the Select Menu at the top (e.g., grow/shrink, feather, smooth, refine, create an outline of a specific border width, Invert, etc). For your sharp edged selection needs, @NotMyFault's suggestion of using Shape Tools is a good one. Those shapes are vectors and can be scaled and modified as desired without the transparency issue. They can also be converted to Curves if you want to customize the shape manually, while still retaining their vector properties.

Thanks...that makes sense too. However, it did leave semitransparent edges after resizing, without using the Move Tool, but using the Transform Panel. I did use the Move Tool to reposition the original selection, but not to resize it. I had Force Pixel Alignment turned on, so dpi and alignment should not have been affected by using the Move Tool.

Ahhh...thanks. Now I understand, and that makes perfect sense!! I appreciate it. 👍😀

NMF, I don't understand how you can modify a selection (at least substantially resizing it) with the Move Tool "inactive". Can you explain that please? How else could we modify the size of a selection? I hadn't noticed this in the context toolbar before, but it does change the dpi...thanks. @Ym Eman I did find another workaround. Make you selection, resize as desired with the Move Tool. Then, "Refine" the selection, and choose the options shown below. Turn OFF "Matte Edges" and move all sliders all the way to the left. This gave me a nice hard edge and no semi-transparent areas.

I guess it depends on what you are doing. I usually don't require a hard edge when transforming selections, but if you do, it would be a hassle. It doesn't seem to happen for me unless I 'transform' a selection. Maybe Nathan C can weigh in on the subject.

Like you, I adjusted the selection edges (top, bottom, left and right, individually) in the Transform Panel to make sure I had integers for pixels (with my Pixels set to 3 decimal places in Preferences). I did this after transforming the size, (Quick mask, Move tool, resizing), but when I do a Cmd-J to duplicate the selection, or an inverted selection, I see a 1 pixel wide edge on either side of the original selection that is partially transparent. So, I haven't been successful in retaining a hard edge after transforming a selection (at least with CMD-J). I tried setting the Transform Panel "Scale Override" settings on, and also off. Didn't make any difference. The only solution I have found that works, so far, is to use Curves, target the Alpha Channel, and adjust the curve to give me 0 alpha on one edge, and 255 alpha on the other edge. You need to drag that Curves adjustment to the masking position. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but if so, I don't know what it is. Transforming a selection and maintaining a hard edge may be a bug. Maybe @NathanC can review what we have done and confirm it is a bug, or show us what we are doing wrong.

I noticed in walking through your History, that you started with a small rectangular selection, then did two transformations, each of which enlarged the original rectangular selection. I'm wondering if that 'enlargement' somehow resulted in feathered edges or something. Try experimenting with that, and if that causes the problem, please let us know. When I made my own selection, I did it once, full size, and didn't transform the selection afterwards. I wouldn't think that should introduce any edge transparency. EDIT: I just tried what I suggested to you. I created an initial selection, no antialiasing, no feather, no refinement. Those edges were sharp. THEN, I transformed the selection (Quickmask Mode, selected the Move Tool, and resized the selection by dragging corners/sides). If you look in the Transform Panel, you will see that it is entirely possible to end up with "fractional pixels" for X/Y, Width or Height, even if you have Force Pixel Alignment active. (I normally set my pixels, in Affinity Settings/Preferences, to 3 decimal points to make the presence of fractional pixels obvious). This appears to be what is creating your semi-transparent edges.

Same here, Trent. I started with the OP's base image, eliminated all History to start with a clean slate (just his base pixel layer). Creating a Marquee Selection, no feather, no antialiasing, no refinement. I get a nice hard edge, whether I invert the selection first or not. I used Cmd-J to duplicate the selected portions onto a new pixel layer. So, it appears something else may have been done when making the selection, or perhaps there was some glitch in the program, the file, the O/S, etc.

Hi @KLE-France My experience is mosly using LightRoom and DNG file formats, and if I'm not mistaken (which I might be), sidecar files are mainly metadata, which is why they are small. DNG file format allows LR or ACR slider positions and other settings to be written into the DNG file directly (eliminating the need for sidecar files). If I stick with a Canon CR2 file (instead of DNG) and make adjustments to the CR2 file in LR, a sidecar file is created because the CR2 file has no place to store this additional data. I'm not sure, but I don't think AfPhoto is all that different...it just writes this information to a different location instead of to a sidecar file. Develop settings are written into the AfPhoto file, which is able to remember all the slider information and other settings used in the Develop Persona (as long as you use RAW Layer Linked or Embedded, and don't convert that RAW layer to a Pixel Layer inside of Photo). I haven't investigated how much masks inflate file sizes, but I know for a fact that Developing using Pixel Layer, instead of RAW Layer (linked) can really increase the file size, especially when editing in 16-bit. If I need to rasterize my RAW file for some reason, I'll often convert the finished file to 8 bit, unless I see some problem with banding, posterization or other artifacts that require me to save as 16 bit. That's one thing I really like about RAW Layer Linked....I can work in 16 bit and my file sizes stay much smaller. I keep my RAW originals anyway, so I always have them available, and see no need to save HUGE AfPhoto files in addition.

@KarinC OK...here's an attempt to demonstrate 3 methods I have used to add texture to some of my AfDesign illustrations. It is very basic, as it needs to be, because what one does is very image dependent. I downloaded a fairly smooth vector butterfly image from Pixabay for illustration purposes. I'll show a series of JPGs (small, so not great quality) to show the original, and 3 alternative methods to add some texture. I'll follow with more detail and an AfDesign file with all these variations. The Lighting Filter and Placed Image methods require the use of some bitmaps textures, which you can create yourself, download from various websites, generate from your own photos, etc. Below is the Original Pixabay Vector Image. This was the original vector image, unmodified. Nice image, but lacking any added texture. Next up is the Lighting Filter (done in AfPhoto). I used "Edit in Photo" and added a Live Lighting Filter above the image (or it can be clipped to a layer to limit the effect to whatever element you wish). I selected "Load Bump Map" from the Lighting Filter dialog box, selected a likely bitmap image that had a suitable texture, then played with the various settings in the Lighting Filter to get the desired effect. All these are rather "overdone" so they are clearly visible online. Next, a Placed JPG Texture Image (set to Overlay blend mode in this example). Below, I Edited in AfPhoto, "placed" a suitable bitmap textured image (see the layer stack), and tried various Layer Blend Modes. In this case, I chose "Overlay" blend mode. The result was too light, so I added a Curves Layer to adjust the density of the bitmap file I chose. The texture you choose will have a HUGE effect on the final texture. I usually try 5 or 10 different texture files until I find one that seems suitable and works best. I'll adjust layer opacity, blend modes, etc, until I get the effect I am after. Finally, a Procedural Texture Filter (done with Edit in AfPhoto). I added a Live Procedural Texture Filter and experimented with different presets, my own custom filters, parameters, etc. (I'm no expert on PT filers, so you're on your own here...it's complicated and poorly documented). A PT texture filter needs to act upon a Pixel Layer, so I duplicated the original Vector Group, rasterized the duplicate, then made the PT filter a child layer (clipped to that layer) of the pixel version of the butterfly. As always, blend modes, opacity, etc, can alter the effect, and it takes some fiddling around to get a suitable result. PT filers also tend to keep file sizes smaller, since they are mathematically generated, unlike adding bitmap layers for texture. Screenshot of The Layer Structure (all variations included but visibility turned off) The above are overdone to make the effects clear and visible. These effects can be extremely varied, limited to foreground, background, both, etc. The images or PT filers you use to add texture have a big impact on the result, as do layer blend modes, opacities, original image density, etc. I've attached the AfDesign File used to create all of the above. I find adding textures can make a difference, especially on some images...like butterflies, which tend to have some iridescent shimmer and variation in their wings. I hope this is reasonably clear and helpful. Butterfly Texture.afdesign

See my first post for a workaround, using the Alpha Channel in a Curves Layer.

FWIW, I'm not seeing what Trent sees. If I duplicate the selection (CMD-J) BEFORE the Invert step (using the OP's History panel), I still see Alpha channels that are not fully transparent or opaque, but they are simply reversed (i.e., 14 alpha on the left and 241 alpha on the right).