Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Torstein

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Torstein

  1. On 11/26/2023 at 11:34 AM, Chills said:

    None of which are anywhere near Lightroom for cataloguing. They are slowly improving that aspect but... 
    For one thing none of them have the mapping section nor the web gallery generation AFAIK

    Photo Supreme looks interesting. You are right that Photo won't replace Lightroom in the same way Photoshop and Bridge don't.

    Get DigiKam for free...

  2. 20 hours ago, DWright said:

    Can you please provide more information on your workflow when the crash report and can you please check the following location to see if a crash report was generated for the time of the crash and if there is one please post the dmp file

    %UserProfile%\.affinity\Photo\2.0\CrashReports\reports\ 

    Sorry, there was no crash report.

    I dont think I can give a very good description of my workflow.... I was working on a jpg file exported from DxO PhotoLab. I was doing quite a bit with the photo. Duplicating the layer 3 times and masking two of the layers. On one of the layers, I also had two masks. Adding several effects like blur, high pass filter etc. etc.

    Anyway, it's not a masterpiece, but I guess I can add the new version of the file here, a somewhat simpler version not quite finished... 

    Vintermåker.afphoto

  3. 1 hour ago, lepr said:

    Yes, that's what I told you.

    I disagree.

    Yes, I said the blurring with Preserve Alpha enabled must happen after the masking.

    Cool :)

     

    It works the way I expect with the Mask layer at bottom, as long as I don't select preserve alpha in the blur layer. With preserve alpha it gives the photo "aura" treatment in any way I order the Mask layer before or after the Blur layer(s).

  4. Maybee I'm not so stupid....

    Some more experimentation and I have found that the order you arrange Mask and Blur layers is important! (That feels like a bug too me!) These two orders of the layers don't give the same result! To my surprise, the last sample with Mask below Blur works fine, while the one with the Mask above the Blur do not!  I would have expected the other way around... You can see the effect in the small samples.

    image.png.5e58ec7bf36c0cd5dfdb995c034e3353.png

    image.png.b5f78628644ec5db1618400a13dd1439.png

    image.png.af8499b6b3d50ea05059b2d853fa1160.pngimage.png.f124a6cadc73c3ec89c59ae354c9f871.png

     

  5. 5 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

    If you already have a mask for the motive, why not duplicate it and invert for use as background mask? You may record the process as macro to do all automatically (just need background, mask layer)

    Thats exactly what I do. I replicate the mask, invert it and use for the background mask. But when I add the blur it's as the blur function also consider pixels that are masked. My work around is to make a new pixel background layer from the masked background layer, but where the masked area is 100 % transparent. That seems to work fine, but it's extra steps with work that should not be necessary. 

  6. I often want to add some blur to backgrounds in my photos. I normally make a copy of the layer, make a mask of the motive and add live layer with blur, gaussian or to blur the background. But when I add plenty of blur AP seems like it also considers the masked area and I get a "halo / gloria" effect around the subject. A work around is to create a new pixel layer where the foreground is totally erased, but it makes the process more cumbersome and it takes more time. 

    I don't know if this is unavoidable, user error or a bug...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.