verysame

I asked this in the comments for the new beta. I'm repeating the question here as I know sometimes questions can go unnoticed. In the latest beta, any new adjustment layer created gets nested within the selected layer. In the previous versions, the adjustment was created on top of the selected layer. I think the way it worked before was much better. Most likely, I want the adjustment on top of the layer stack, rather than nested within the selected layer. Is there a particular reason for this new behavior or is it a bug case? Best, Andrew

Thank you, brunzenstein. I need to find a screen recorder that also shows the hotkeys pressed by the user, that would be convenient for me, I don't like using menus :P

Dudda, I put together a short demo. The quality of the video is low res, I forgot to bump up the quality when I started recording. The technique is the same as in my previous posting, the result is kind of 'dry' though, as I wasn't focusing on the look but on the steps instead. And it was a little stuttering because I always use hotkeys, whereas in the video I wanted to show what command I was using and I don't remember the menus very well. There are of course different ways to achieve similar results, this is just one of the many. Anyway, the steps should be clear now. Once you get it, you can have fun and experiment. Here's the link: http://sendvid.com/tq646qbz

KiboOst, Is this what you mean for what concerns the layer clipping? http://sendvid.com/h1sm48kb As for the multiple layer selection, I believe there's a request already but the more we are the better! :) You can join the request in the feature request forum: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/forum/6-feature-requests/

Working great so far, no issues. One thing I noticed: now adding a Curve gets nested under the selected layer automatically. In the previous versions the default behavior was having the Curve added over the selected layer, which I think is more convenient. Is this something you guys changed or a bug?

You basically want to start with the posterization. I scaled up your original picture. Although the resolution is low, since the final result is kind of loose as far as edge definition goes, is not a big issue. Then you add a posterize, a grayscale conversion and a level or curve adjustment in order to crush the levels: Once you get to that point, you can start having fun. I added a blur, I used a box blur in this case. At this point, you can group the layers if you want and add a wall texture underneath the group. The stencil group needs to be multiplied over the wall texture. I actually preferred to duplicate the group and have one first group with a Soft Light transfer and the top group with the Multiply. By doing so, you can mask both groups and play with the values revealing parts of each group in order to make the overall image less precise. Theoretically, you can stop here or keep playing. Since it's fun, I kept playing. I've used these brushes to add some more spray feeling to it: https://www.brusheezy.com/brushes/1371-hi-res-spraypaint-photoshop-brushes-set-one I've used the spray brushes to add a little touch of spray paint and also to mask part of the image. And some of these textures: spray paint texture - Google Search - https://goo.gl/w359u2 One last thing. In the ref you posted it's also noticeable the wall texture over the stencil. So, adding some wall texture over the image as well might help to get the look closer to the ref. I liked the grainy quality of the texture in your original ref and I tried to redo it in Photo. Here's one way to approach it. On a new layer, add a Perlin Noise: Then add the Emboss: Finally, change the transfer mode to something like hard light or overlay. You might need to play with the values of the noise and also with the opacity of the noise layer and then, you might need to increase the contrast which you can easily do by adding a level/curve adjustment to the noise layer: I admit that a simple wall-like-noisy-texture will do, and actually you can get a more realistic result, but sometimes playing with the filters is fun. Here's the afphoto: https://www.sendspace.com/file/eyxyp3 Hope that helps. Let me know if you have questions.

As suggested by gdenby, playing with the posterize filter and then adding some texture with the brushes, and also masking out part of the posterized image should take you pretty close:

Miguel, On the same topic, any chance you can take a look at this when you have a moment? https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/33026-trying-to-use-photoshop-brushes-in-affinity-photo/

Yep, the TPL. I'm using regular brushes, though. Thanks again, MBd.

Thanks MBd, Other than some settings getting lost, what I wanted to point out is that for some brushes not only the settings are screwed, but the behavior is nor reproducible even after tweaking the settings.

Any chance someone would try them out?

Same goes for this other set of brushes: http://lilaccu.deviantart.com/art/Winter-2012-brushes-Happy-New-Year-345316587 AP PS

Hi there, I'm trying some Photoshop brushes in AP. I've noticed most of the time I need to tweak a few settings in order to get the brush effect similar to what I see in PS. For instance, I need to play with the Dynamics. Quite often is the texture as it seems the scale is off or the setting needs to be changed from final to nozzle. That is totally fine, it is just a matter of playing with it a bit. For some brushes, though, it seems no matter what I do, I not only can't get the same look but also the behavior is quite different. For instance, with brushes used for concept / digital painting like this, I struggle a lot: http://andantonius.deviantart.com/art/Digital-Oil-Brushes-Free-Download-597379459 AP PS The quality of the texture in PS and the smoothness of the operation feels different. Perhaps I need to tweak some more settings, but I've been playing with this for a few days now and I'm kind of lost. Any hints?

Font Expert is another good font manager. A decent free manager is Nexus: http://www.xiles.net/

There's a catch, though. Clicking on the arrow also temporary resets the value showed by the color sample to zero, basically turning it useless. In order to show the values again, I have to click on the sample (and by the way, sometimes the values simply stay on zero). I'm not sure to understand it. Is it a bug?

I can't seem to find the option to hide them. Never mind, I just need to click on the arrow tool in the sampler box :)

That looks really great! Thanks for this gift :) P.S. It almost reminds me of Alchemy!

This might be worth a try as well: http://a-sharper-scaling.com/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/imageenlarger/

Hm... my case was a little trickier. I needed to protect the mask's alpha but not the layer's alpha. The method mentioned above worked like a charm.

Doh! :) I keep forgetting about it. Thank you, Miguel!

Alright, Something it's off here, it might be just me but I was almost sure I did this already and it was working, except now it is not anymore. Here's situation: I have a layer with a color fill on a selection I added a mask and I blurred it I want to crush the levels of the mask in order to expand/contract it This is how it works in PS: the layer the mask Curves on the mask In AP The Curve on the mask And as you can see I'm not tweaking the values of the mask. Instead, the curve is affecting the layer. And yet I thought I've done this before in AP, only now I'm not getting it. Any hints?

Thank you for helping bleduc. The file I posted was merely a test to explain what I was trying to achieve. The mask I did on that file was very rough and incomplete, but the idea was there. Basically, I wanted to check if in AP it is possible to have an FX on a layer and protect the mask channel at the same time. As it turns out is not possible. Basically, it's what in PS you would do by applying a Gaussian Blur to a smart object and then adding a mask to it. The mask would not be affected by the gaussian blur, only the smart object would. But, there's a workaround :) What it just needed is keeping the FX on, then grouping the rectangle with the Gaussian Blur still on, and add the mask to the group! https://www.sendspace.com/file/ebb9j9

Hey, Bleduc, Now I know exactly what happened and maybe you can help me figuring this out. I created a rectangle to darken some area. Now, the rectangle doesn't cover the entire area of my document, only a portion. Then, I added the Gaussian Blur FX in order to feather the edges of the rectangle so that there's a soft transition between the darkened area and the original photo. Lastly, I started painting the mask in order to separate the figure. Now, if I leave the FX default settings as is, the Gaussian Blur is applied to the whole layer and mask. In order to leave the mask unaffected, I checked the Preserve Alpha Option. So, when the Preserve Alpha was off, the gaussian blur was so high that the mask disappeared (that's why I thought the mask wasn't working). Whereas, if I turn on the Preserve Alpha Option, the mask remains clean, but then the option affect the edges of the rectangle as well. Here's a very rough file to show what the issue is about: https://www.sendspace.com/file/dg6gcr I know there are other ways to do this, but at least I want to understand if this is how it's supposed to work in AP or it's a bug, or devs can simply change it.

The thing is, I was actually trying to paint on the mask but it wasn't just working. Sometimes things don't seem to work as expected and I wonder if it's just me trying to adapt to AP after years of PS, or if there's some quirk now and then. My first attempts with AP were cumbersome: it took me a little while to realize that pressing B not only activate the brush tool but also cycles through all the brush tools! For instance, I was painting on masks and my black & white wasn't simply blending as expected, to a point that it was getting frustrating and I usually ended up deleting the mask and starting over. Only to realize that I was using the Color Replacement Brush! Now it makes more sense, and I start kind of appreciating the fact that I have fewer hotkeys to use than in PS. The move tool, for instance. There was a quite long thread about this a while back. At first, it was strange for me as well but since the move tool also works as a Transform tool, I like it this way with the hand tool being the default.

Hm... I created a new file, very strange, now it's working.