Jump to content

MJSfoto1956

Members
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MJSfoto1956


  1. I've been using Photoshop since 1990. And during that time I too got used to "resizing" my images to match the desired output. However, I've since changed my ways with Affinity Photo -- I now only "resize" on export. Since Affinity doesn't lose resolution when resizing pixel layers, you can stack a bunch of images, each with different resolution density, scale them each as layers, and output them at the desired resolution without losing any fidelity. At first I was skeptical but after having just printed a solo show for a museum here in Massachusetts using this technique, I'm sold.

     

    YMMV
     

    Michael


  2. back in the very early days of digital cameras, I printed a 2mp image to 40"x60" -- and it looked great. The reason it looked great was A.) the nature of subject matter lent itself to not requiring a lot of resolution and B.) the distance the image was to be viewed was ideal for the amount of data being printed.

     

    Needless to say, your needs may vary.

     

    Michael


  3. It is common practice to not support an OS once that OS is no longer supported by its author. While it may be true that "there is a market for XP" (debatable btw) the sheer age of XP and its lack of security precludes it being viable in the long run. While painful, every company I know that still uses XP knows the end is near. My advise to Affinity would be to avoid XP at all costs. Sorry.

     

    Michael


  4. You have touched on the purpose of my original post. Without a method of targeting just the narrow color range of the red skin, the HSL or selective color adjustments will also alter the color of the normal red skin. You had to add a duplicate layer set to multiply blend mode to compensate for this. The down side is that the result is an image of a subject that appears to have a darker complexion than they have in real life. 

     

    fair enough. But it would be trivial to "dial it back" to suit your taste. I happen to like the skin tones, but someone else might like it lighter. Not an issue IMHO. But it would be nice to improve the tool to go "beyond" 100% and constrain to a specific range of hues.

     

    M


  5. Not bad. I am really appreciating the blend options in AP. They are much more versatile than the blend-if sliders in PS. I would still use a mask layer to stop the adjustment from affecting the lips. I am also curious as to why you used a duplicate layer set to multiply bend mode. Typically I will do this to blast the contrast or darken the skin. It is a common technique for darkening a tan.

     

    I just felt the skin was too light after selective color -- so I added more density to the highlights and less to the shadows (which further helped reduce the "dark" red areas in relation to the lighter skin tones).


  6.  

    Thanks MBd. 

     

     

    MJSfoto1956, I have attached two images. One is a pretty much unedited version. The other contains my edits. One final think I did do, was to paint out some of the minor blotches in frequency separation (low frequency) that I didn't get with the selective color adjustment.

     

     

    So I've been playing with your image and I'm pretty happy with the result (without any masks). But before I reveal what I've done, I have to say that your shadows are full of red also, which only exasperates the issue at hand. To wit: look under the yellow collar -- the shadows are red, not dark yellow. Thoughts as to how that came to be?

     

    M


  7. Evidently it allows one to input mathematical functions as parameters to filters via the interface. Think of it as a built in version of Filter Forge (see https://www.filterforge.com). However, without a solid math degree or ample documentation, it won't be of much practical use to the ordinary user. That being said, those who do figure out how this feature can be leveraged will be able to produce interesting macros that will mimic many of the "must have" filters that we buy today.

     

    M


  8. So the blend options + blur effects behaviors in v1.5 seem to be "improved" over v1.4x but still problematic.

    • For example, if I create a vector fill layer and specify gaussian blur effects the vector is blurred as expected.
    • If I create a vector fill layer and set blend options on the underlying layer, the vector's fill is blended into the background as specified.
    • However if I attempt BOTH, only the blur works has any effect.
    • Now, if I change the "blend options" to on the source layer, the two together work properly. 

    See attached screenshots as an example of this "feature".

     

    Cheers

    M

     

    post-27362-0-09215800-1481235516_thumb.png

    post-27362-0-61206100-1481235531_thumb.png

    post-27362-0-21450100-1481235543_thumb.png

    post-27362-0-46711700-1481235555_thumb.png

    post-27362-0-18753300-1481235569_thumb.png

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | 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.