thomaso

> I did not have that option.  The Help will guide you to this menu entry.

> Usually a jpeg file becomes smaller after editing or am I missing something? Not at all, or, it depends: Often you edit an image file to increase its amount of information (details). For instance you might edit an image to increase its sharpness or to get more visible items in lights or shadows. That would result in more details = more different pixels compared to the origin, and therefore result in a larger file size, even with same compression rate. Vice versa it means you need to reduce the amount of different pixel to achieve a smaller file size when re-saving a JPG. Such a reduction accordingly can be achieved by blurring the image or reducing its total pixel amount (= dimension). The special situation where you re-save a JPG without editing it also results in different pixels because even 100% quality (0% compression) would slightly compress the file again. That way every save action would reduce the file size – but you would need hundreds of re-save actions to make this effect visible for your eyes, not to mention obvious. The different file sizes are partially also related to the document format. 46 mb: Affinity apps use a format of their own with specific data which aren't inside non-Affinity files, for instance a larger preview image with no or less or different compression.

Nested master: A slightly different approach would be not to apply 2 masters to each related document page but to combine the 2 masters in the master page panel already by applying one master to the other. That way you apply only 1 master to the document page, where in its layer panel only 1 master layer appears but which has the other master inside its layer and at its bottom. That means the order of such nested masters is different what you need to respect when applying one master to another.

I am less confused by the inconsistency but more by the words "pixel" + "format". The term "format" here stands for "space" / "range" / "area" referring to "Color". Is "color format" in English a synonym for "color space" or "color model" ? (sorry, it might sound stupid, I think my concern is caused by my native non-English tongue "format".) > Pixel Format because (...) you specify whether the pixels are 8- or 16-bit. So the label also could be "Vector Format" because the vector item's colors get converted to the chosen bit rate, too? Or "Pixel Space"? Or simply "Your Format" because it was your, the user's, choice? I just can't see any additional or useful information given with the term "Pixel" in this menu's label for "Color Space" (or "Color Format") selection.

Wow, Thank you, Walt! – Again you guide me to an option which sounds quite different to me but does what I want. – Any idea why here "Color Space" is called "format"? And why "Pixel", since JPG is pixel only? I thought that would refer to output dimensions in a way and therefore I did not try it. Also this option's position seems odd: not next to "ICC profile" but above the "Resampler" selection.

Is there a way to select the color space RGB for an export of a CMYK document as JPG? I wonder if I just don't see the setting – cause for PDF and TIFF I see free choice, and even for GIF a little. – But none for JPG.

> reducing the quality to approx 93-95% will half the file size of the image to JPEG In my experience, it is rather 75-85%, which halve the file size compared to 100%. However, it also depends on the amount of image details.

Pšenda, there is kind of a "None" mode for a stroke: it is to assign no color (the Ø swatch icon). But for this situation it isn't useful because multiple strokes always start from the line center to the outside (according to their stroke width). So, a stroke "None" would NOT delete the stroke(s) underneath – which actually is the nice feature of "Erase" mode – but result in a plain stroke only. Actually in this topic I wonder whether there is a chance to use a stroke in "Erase" mode to visually delete parts of a different object underneath. (Like it works with a layer's mode, but for the entire layer only)

If you have the issue with other documents then indeed it might be worth to create a sample file. A group of 3 rectangles for instance, partially covering each other, would be enough to see you clicking on the middle of an object versus on the objects edge. Yes, an awful workflow. I prefer meanhwile the additional key clicks or selection within layers panel. But its all still not a fluently, intuitive workflow.

With multiple strokes I notice two issues which affect the stroke visibility in a way which seems to crop from the stroke either its outer or its inner part. One issue occurs when a layer opacity is set from 100 to 99 %: that makes the outer stroke part disappear at once, whereas a reduction of opacity isn't visible for the rest. The other issue occurs if the fill color of the group layer gets ticked to invisible in the appearance panel: that makes the inner part of the stroke partially disappear. multistroke grouped issues.m4v I don't know if it is related to the recently reported and known crash issue of the thread linked below. Although it is shown with the same Test.afdesign the issue shows something very different. I have not tested whether it influences an export, I just got confused by the appearance.

My hints do not touch the issue you mentioned: Possibly besides (or instead, if it isn't related to a document) a screen video would show your specific issue of "nothing gets selected". Make sure to show the complete page (or spread) and the layers panel. Honestly I still have difficulties with selecting objects inside a group on page with move tool, too. I am simply not used to press an additional key as a default function – I'd rather appreciate I'd need to press one if I want to select the entire group only. Or, to be able to kind of unlock the group property of being selected automatically when an object on page is meant to be clicked.

The file size of image file formats always depends on the selected compression rate, which is usually selected as the quality value. When you mention a file size is "doubled" then you need to know with what "half" it is compared; you didn't mention that "before" state. To compare the impact of JPEG compression on file size have a look at this site of Jeffrey Friedl: Just scroll to an image and hover over the different compression rates to compare details/loss and file size simultaneously: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality

By the way: Another way to select an object inside a group is to Double-Click the item on page: the 1st click selects the group, the 2nd an object inside. Additionally an OPTION-Click does select the grouped objects in their layer order and enables you to select objects behind others. Once an object of a group got selected by a double-click for instance then another Double-Click will switch to the Node Tool + highlights its single nodes and offers their individual node selection. p.s.: On mac a CTRL-click would select the object AND open the context menu. Instead CMD-click selects the object only in macOS.

No, it is not a Mac Finder dialog. Apparently it was designed to simulate the macOS standard but faulty. It is caused by Affinity because the issues occur only within Affinity, also its appearance is slightly different to the native macOS look, for instance the title bar design (color, height, text style). And the date sort order (screenshot from video above) would not be presented that way by macOS, not to mention the white gap at the end of the screencast.

+1 Alternatively/additionally I'd appreciate to get a different UI: no set of 2 pulldown menus with a bunch of entries you need to combine to achieve a specific result – but rather simply a text field and some placeholders to customize the result, for instance "YYYY-MM-DD" >> 2019-10-12 "dd DD. mm. YY" >> So 12. Oct. 19 "ddd DD. mmm" >> Saturday 12. October etc ...