Big_Stan

Stokerg, Thank you for your response, even though it arrived three weeks after I posted the problem. While I was trying to get Affinity Photo to stitch a satisfactory pano, I rediscovered Hugin for Mac. Hugin has a problem with a routine called "PTBatcherGUI", but when I posted the problem on the Hugin forum, I received immediate "fix" suggestions and now, "all is well in pano land". I use C1 for my raw processing, and since neither AP nor Hugin automatically round trip with C1, there is no advantage to using either stitcher; except Hugin produces a better pano. If AP produced a pano with fewer artifacts, there would be a definite work flow advantage to using AP rather than the convoluted way that I am now doing it. Thank you again, I just got anxious to stitch my pano.

I have started doing panos again. In the past I used Lightroom and Hugin to create my panos and I was generally pleased with the resulting images. Now that I have dumped Lightroom and since I am having problems getting Hugin to play nicely with C1, I decide to give AP a try. Fortunately Thomas Fitzgerald published a tutorial yesterday on how to create a pano using C1 and AP. However I am not happy with the resulting pano, the image seam boundaries have very noticeable luminance problems. The C1 part of the process seems to be working fine, but when I stitch the panorama with AP I see different sky brightness at the seam boundaries. In the “busy” portions of the foreground the artifacts are visible if you know where to look and you zoom in to 200%. However, the blended sky is different matter. The luminance artifacts at the image boundaries are very visible at a “fit on the screen” setting. I have attached my test bed image. The image is too big to upload so I cropped it to show two of the worst artifacts, they are at the sky line just in from the left and the right respectively. Here is the link to the tutorial: https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2020/5/video-stitching-panoramas-with-capture-one-and-affinity-photo?utm_source=Thomas+Fitzgerald+Photography+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2ded712fbd-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e0e9f78b2f-2ded712fbd-254217577&mc_cid=2ded712fbd&mc_eid=3ea2b17dfa

I use PDFelement. The good news: I am able to digitally sign document, it has a very good OCR, and I have used it to create downloadable pdf forms. The bad news, their tutorials are amateurish and they omit many steps. By trial and error and with much frustration I have created a few "Crib Notes" as reminders. I have also used Foxit tutorials (much better) to help me get over some of the rough spots The best news, I believe that are running good sales now..

This morning while eating breakfast my brain started working. I took my last bite of toast and swallow of coffee and came downstairs to my computer. It worked Thank you!!!

Thank you!! Unfortunately, I am not particularly effective with layers and to add to my problem, I have been in the house too long. I need a "cook book". While I was able to get the moon into the image, I was unable to get it in the desired location nor was I able to shrink the moon to correct for the different focal lengths.

I have been reworking some of my old images to improve my skills and keep my spirits up and I think that this isolation in place has finally fried my brain. I have an old image of a night skyline of Washington, DC and I want to insert a full moon into the image above and to the left of the foreground building (Lincoln Memorial). Back in my CS-6 days this was not rocket science, but doing it in AP is driving me crazy. Can somebody out there point me to an AP tutorial on inserting a moon into an image. I would like to accomplish this before our Governor rescinds his "stay home order". The skyline was shot at 75mm and the moon was shot at 135mm, so I will have to shrink the moon about 50% in order to keep the scale correct. I have attached the skyline and the moon images

In order to avoid exacerbating my confusion, I sent old brush to the machine that Thomas Crapper invented in 1880.

I gave up!! Rather than banging my head against the wall trying to figure out what happened, I said the heck with it and created a new brush. I am happy to say that there is goodness in the world again; the watermark brush is working.

Thank you Dan, I was beginning to think that my brain slipped a cog. Do you mean Intensity Brush vs Image Brush? Since it previously work for 3 years with no problem, I cannot image how it changed to an Image Brush. Where do I find the brush category information?

Thank you.

Several years ago I created a watermark brush and I was very pleased with the result. I was able to change size, opacity and color. Since 1.8.1, I can still change size and opacity, but I can no longer change color (black to white) regardless of what I do the watermark is black. If I go to the color tab and select the white circle and then paint the watermark on the image, the resulting watermark is still black. Blend mode is set to normal. There is a little circle just to the lower left of the color selection and it has a red diagonal line through it and no matter what I push, the red diagonal does not go away. Bottom line, after several years of satisfactory performance, I am now unable to change the color of the brush.

firstdefence, Thank you for the suggestion. I used to use the original NIK plugins with AP, but when I changed to a new Mac (Catalina compatible) a couple of months ago, I was unable to get the NIK plugins to reinstall. I guess it is time to drag it out again figure out why they wouldn't install.

Does anybody have experience with Neat Image Version 8.5? Back in my PS days, Noiseware was my "go to" noise reduction plugin. Using Noiseware I could denoise by preset, tonal range & color range, as well as by noise frequency. I have Noiseware, sort of working with AP, but the preview window looks weird. Since Imagenomic explicitly states the they do not support AP, I am in the market for a good Noise Reduction plugin. I shoot at fairly low ISOs and my shots are not too noisy. Up til now I have not been particularly impressed with the Topaz AI products ( I like to do my own thing and not let the machine do the heavy lifting)

thank you

I just switched from a 5,1 Mac Pro to a 2019 iMac with Catalina. I am using C1, AP and other common S/W and I am not experiencing any problems. In fact, I have found that my post processing seems to be running smoother and faster. I did have an issue getting Noiseware installed as an AP plugin, but that is a known problem (Imagenomic told me that they do not support AP and while it may seem to be "working", it may not be fully functional.)