Jump to content

- S -

  • Posts

  • Joined

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Member Title
    Set *.tif Free

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And Affinity Photo already has a feature precisely for this type of thing [View > Assistant Manager], where it could be added. But Serif will continue to ignore it – like they always do. The nerds will continue to gaslight and make excuses – like they always do. And people will have to keep paying through the nose for Photoshop on their main machine because nothing come close to it and it just works. Serif really need to get out of this nerd-bubble and do some real-world usability testing. How they think the majority of users use their software is not how they actually use it. Nobody wants blurry layers, or hairline seams at the edges of their vectors, or blend modes that don't work properly, or to wrestle with countless other idiosyncrasies with the software that keep trying to trip them up, they just want to get on with what they are doing. A constant stream of "work-a-rounds" impresses nobody.
  2. @Stokestack I agree about fractions of pixels being a PITA. I would gladly welcome a setting where absolutely everything is automatically rounded to whole pixels – I despise fractions of pixels. Anyway, regarding the degradation of the image quality when merging down (I.E. making the image blurry). I haven't been following the issue, however has anyone given an explanation why the bottom layer moves slightly when merging the top layer down? In the below test file, when the top layer is merged down, the bottom layer expands slightly – which will obviously cause blurring. I have no idea why it would be considered normal to do this when both layers are already perfectly aligned to the pixel grid. Upper Layer Before Merge Down: Lower Layer Before Merge Down: Merged Down: Before Merge Down (Close-up): After Merge Down (Close-up): Test File: Test.afphoto
  3. You have your wires crossed – nobody is looking to get rid of that feature. It's a feature I use myself with digital drawing for example (I.E. select an area – such as a nose – using the Freehand Selection tool and move/scale/rotate the selection slightly with the Move tool so it's better proportioned. The problem is with the way the Marquee tools work. I.E. the user is expected to be able to select a pixel perfect area in one go, first time, and without even being able to use any modifier keys such as the spacebar to position it. The OP is talking about a rectangular selection, however this gets even more tricky when using the Elliptical Marquee tool to select parts of eyes, such as pupils and irises, or wheels for example. If the user has come from Photoshop, it will be a jarring experience. A work-a-round is then posted that allows changing it afterwards, however it doesn't work as expected (I.E. it makes the edges soft when resizing the marquee) as either the workaround wasn't originally designed to be used for that particular purpose, or it's possible there's a discrepancy between how it works on different platforms. The hope is not for the tool makers (Serif) to remove functionality from the workaround (which is a bit like Free Transform), but to look at the problem the tool user is experiencing (with the Marquee tools in this case, not the Move tool) and figure out a better way to do it – maybe even with a [Select > Transform selection] menu item.
  4. We are talking about the blurring of the edges being a bug. If you want soft edges instead of hard edges, you can still do that using various other methods. I.E. 1) Enter a "Feather" value in the selection tool context menu at the top, or the [Select > Feather] menu. 2) Select the "Anti-alias" tick box from the selection tool context menu at the top. 3) Select "Refine…" from the selection tool context menu at the top, or the [Select > Refine Edges] menu, where it's possible to also enter a feather value. 4) Add a Gaussian Blur directly to the layer mask. Or, to do it non-destructively, clip the layer mask to the image layer (longer horizontal bar, instead of short vertical bar) and then clip a Gaussian Blur Adjustment Layer to the layer mask to blur the mask.
  5. @Dan C Both the "quick mask" technique and the "empty pixel layer" technique make the edges soft when resizing the marquee. The marquee tools need to be changed to operate in the same way the rectangle and ellipse tools do. These tools also allow the user to position the first corner while holding down the spacebar and then releasing the spacebar and dragging to select the rest. The marquee tools in their current form are pretty useless. Marquee Tool.mp4
  6. Below are similar images to the original post, just with the mask shifted up slightly. Screenshot C : Screenshot D : Original File: Test 02.afphoto
  7. This is an old issue – I even commented on it five years ago. However, I never figured out what Affinity Photo is actually doing. Affinity Photo is obviously applying some sort of blending mode, but I don't understand what blending mode it is actually applying – or why it is applying it. I can't think of any reason how this would be considered normal operation; there are no real world scenarios where this behaviour would be expected. The attached test file contains a single pixel layer, which is in a group, and a mask is applied to the group. In a real world scenario, there would be more layers in the group and therefore the mask would be masking multiple layers in the group, but for demonstration purposes I am only using one pixel layer in the group here. The default blending mode for groups in Affinity Photo is Passthrough. With the Passthrough blending mode, the mask does not work as expected (see below screenshots). Screenshot A: The mask that is masking the group is just a straight horizontal line running through the centre of the image. The expected result would be the group mask just revealing the pink layer (Fill layer) below. However, as can be seen in the screenshot, the Passthrough blending mode causes odd distortions, colour shifts and fringes. Screenshot B: With the group blending mode set to Normal, the mask works as expected – the straight horizontal mask running through the centre of the image just reveals the pink layer below, with no odd distortions, colour shifts and fringes. Original File: Test 01.afphoto
  8. Generally I don't use Dodge and Burn tools for dodging and burning. I find using curves adjustment layers (and painting directly on the layer masks with a soft brush set to a low flow) a more flexible method for dodging and burning; and it will allow you to set a maximum amount that you want to dodge/burn using the curve adjustment. The masks can be edited afterwards using a black or white brush. The amount of dodge and burn can also be edited afterwards by adjusting the curve in the curves adjustment layer. If you record the steps for creating the dodge and burn layers with a macro, you can save it to the macro library to use on other documents. See below video. Dodge & Burn.mp4
  9. The lengths Serif go to to avoid admitting they made a poor decision is astounding. If you want to cure your OCD, do what you should have done in the first place (and what I have been complaining about for four years) and make it (*.tif;*.tiff) and (*.jpg;*.jpeg) so that it defaults to three letter extensions – like the entire imaging industry has been doing for over 25 years. This is already the long established de facto standard for those file types. It has also always been recommended practice to use the most commonly used extension on the left (which .tiff and .jpeg are not). "For Save File, include all variations of the supported file extensions, even if uncommon, and put the most common extension first." Serif's obsession with forcing their users to use *.tiff is absurd; I have never come across a single person in 25 years who has wanted files to be saved as *.tiff or *.jpeg. There are zero advantages to doing this, it only creates problems and inconsistencies with what is already in place. If you get OCD over a dialogue box, try having to deal with having both *.tif and *.tiff in the same folder and two files of the same file type being able to have the same name. Fighting Affinity software workflow issues like this is why I decided to go back to using Photoshop, which I had previously been using since Photoshop 5 in 1998 anyway. Earlier this year I had enough; I had an archive of over 18000 historical images I needed to go through, clean up the metadata and embed ICC profiles in. Affinity Photo insisting on taking the *.tif originals and then spitting them out as *.tiff when batch processing them was too unworkable. Whether Serif thinks .tiff looks prettier – or some equally nonsense reason – is moot; the software cannot do what I need it to do. With Photoshop I do not need to fight the software or use work-a-rounds – it just works as it should. I cannot force you to act on feedback, however when I was a frequent visitor in this forum, I used to see a lot of excellent feedback from people who were very clearly power users – then someone would reply with some sort of excuse or work-a-round. Serif then appear to view these issues as 'problem solved'; I never saw any of that feedback from heavy users acted on. A work-a-round is perhaps OK for hobbyists dealing with relatively small numbers of images at their leisure, but when dealing with large numbers of images at a time and working extensively with the software every day, even something seemingly minor to others makes using the software unbearable for what is already a tedious and repetitive process. Power users know what they want to software to do; Serif can try to justify their decisions and ignore the feedback, but the issue won't go away – it just leads to resenting the software. To be clear, I'm not looking for a reply – this is feedback only.
  10. It's not. When trying to update or uninstall Affinity software, the installer looks for the Affinity MSI installer database file located in the C:\Windows\Installer folder (I.E. C:\Windows\Installer\83225.msi). If it can't find this file (for example, if something has deleted it), then it will try to find the original installer database file. In Affinity's case, the original installer database file would have been extracted to a temporary location during the original installation (I.E. C:\Users\UserName\AppData\Local\Temp\AffinitySetup\8c1170d2-f3c0-4caf-b5c8-5c8ec4804826\Affinity.msi). After installation, it is deleted from this temporary location by the installer. The dialogue you can see in the OP's screenshot when they try to uninstall it is saying just this: It can't find the Affinity MSI installer database file located in the C:\Windows\Installer folder and it also can't find the original 'Affinity.msi' file (which it won't, because after installation it's deleted from that temporary location). Although the dialogue gives a 'Browse' option, it is not possible to point the dialogue box to the msi (as it doesn't exist anymore) and it's also not possible to point it to the original downloaded file instead – as Affinity supply an exe file, not an msi file. Therefore, the OP will need to run the Microsoft troubleshooter tool and follow the prompts for an 'uninstalling' issue; this will allow the application to be uninstalled.
  11. This is neither a Windows issue, nor a Serif issue; Affinity products uninstall fine. This is likely a third-party issue, such as something "cleaning" the installer folder when it should be left alone. The application needs the msi installer intact so it knows what's installed and where before it updates or uninstalls itself. If it's not, then you get the errors the OP posted in their screenshots (demonstrated below). Video.mp4 They will need to download & run the tool from the below link, follow the prompts for an 'uninstalling' issue, then uninstall the Affinity software: https://support.microsoft.com/help/17588/windows-fix-problems-that-block-programs-being-installed-or-removed Edit: The tool in the above link is no longer available to download from 3 August 2020 due to it not being signed with a SHA-256 certificate (it was signed in 2015 with a SHA-1 cert). However, Serif have a link in the FAQ section to a version of the "Microsoft Uninstall Troubleshooter" tool hosted on OneDrive: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/98922-faq-installer-errors-setup-failed-installer-windows-ui-issues/&do=findComment&comment=541684 If the OneDrive link doesn't work, there's also a version here: https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/86975-program-install-uninstall-troubleshooter-windows.html
  12. I would use the monitor ICM colour profiles that Microsoft supply for the Intel Surface Laptop 3. 1) Download the "SurfaceOemPanel (Intel).zip" file from my post above. 2) Follow the below video. Video001.mp4
  13. Looking at the display model number (LQ150P1JX51), that's a display from a 15" Surface Laptop 3, rather than a Surface Pro. Although, I'm guessing that's just a typo. "…it is a Sharp LQ150P1JX51 panel made especially for the Microsoft Surface Laptop 3. It is Sharp factory calibrated to 100% sRGB, Delta E <1 and also offers an enhanced mode (saturated)." Until the OP replies, the ICM colour profile name does match the Surface Laptop 3 ICM colour profile. Someone has previously posted about this colour profile on the Microsoft website – however, over the years, I've yet to see a display/hardware manufacturer give a technical reason why some of their ICC/ICM display colour profiles display one of the RGB colour channels oddly: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/forum/all/surface-pro-icm-profile-has-wrong-header-size-and/cb29ce76-9ebc-42f7-954a-63c3868a33e8 Interestingly, if I extract the ICM display colour profiles directly from the Surface Laptop 3 driver MSI files, the ICM colour profile included with the Intel drivers displays 255,255,255 as white (at least in Windows Sandbox, on an Intel desktop machine, with a Dell monitor), however the one included with the AMD drivers gives a yellow colour cast. Surface Laptop 3 (with Intel Processor Drivers and Firmware): MSI link: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=100429 Extract MSI command: msiexec /a C:\Users\WDAGUtilityAccount\Desktop\SurfaceLaptop3_Win10_18362_20.072.28623.0.msi /qb TARGETDIR=C:\Users\WDAGUtilityAccount\Desktop\MSIOutput The extracted ICM profiles from the Intel MSI file (Zip file): SurfaceOemPanel (Intel).zip Screenshot: Surface Laptop 3 (with AMD Processor Drivers and Firmware): MSI link: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=100428 Extract MSI command: msiexec /a C:\Users\WDAGUtilityAccount\Desktop\SurfaceLaptop3_Win10_18362_20.053.37902.0.msi /qb TARGETDIR=C:\Users\WDAGUtilityAccount\Desktop\MSIOutput The extracted ICM profiles from the AMD MSI file (Zip file): surfaceoempanel (AMD).zip Screenshot:
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. 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.