- S -
-
Posts
817 -
Joined
Posts posted by - S -
-
-
That's the alpha channel value.
In RGB:
0 = fully transparent
127 = Half transparent
255 = fully opaqueIn LAB/HSL/Greyscale:
0% = fully transparent
49% = Half transparent
100% = fully opaqueTo see it for yourself:
1) Open a new document
2) Go to Document > Transparent Background (to toggle background to transparent)
3) Use the Rectangle Tool to drag a rectangle on the canvas
4) As you change the layer opacity of the rectangle, the Alpha value in the Info Pane will change accordingly
-
Coming from Photoshop I too am in the habit of dragging a selection, using spacebar to move/align the selection, then continue dragging. So I'm missing that feature as well. I'm not sure whether there's a better way, but this is what I've been doing instead as a work-a-round:
1) Make a selection with one of the Selection Marquee tools
2) Press 'Q' to enter Quick Mask mode
3) Press 'V' to select Move tool
4) The selection marquee is now draggable/editable
5) Press 'Q' to exit Quick Mask mode and go back to the marching ants
Maybe it was something that was just overlooked, because the Affinity Photo shape tools (such as the rectangle/eclipse tool) work with the Spacebar, just not the marquee tools.
Alternatively, depending on what you want to do with the selection, you can use the rectangle tool, eclipse tools, etc. as a layer mask as shown in this video:
-
I think so. Despite the error message it still resets the brushes though.
I reported it in the bug section here:
-
In the info pane, the symbols on the left are clickable. Therefore, if you click on the round symbol at the top, it will give you the option to choose which values you want it to display.
-
If your mask and image layers are seperate, then drag the mask layer on top of the image thumbnail that you want the mask to apply to, so that the mask nests with it. Once nested, if you select just the mask layer, the move tool will move just the mask. If you select the image layer, both the mask and the image will move together.
You can find a video demonstrating it here:
Alternatively, if for some reason you want to keep the mask layer and image layer un-nested and completely separate, press the CTRL key on the keyboard, then select both layers whilst keeping it pressed. As both layers are selected, they will then move together when using the move tool.
-
Thank you for your reply and providing a work-a-round, however it seem odd that this is by design. Therefore, would it be possible to move this post to the 'Feature Request' section of the site, as I feel that the slider should still allow the full 360º rotation of a brush head.
Instead of restricting the slider to 50% for everybody, I think it would be a lot more usable to have the slider span the full 0-100% and then in order to accomodate for those who are only using a basic round/square brush with the shape compressed, just put a 'notch' half way along the slider at the 180º point and allow snapping to that point.
-
In Brushes > More, the 'Rotation' slider only goes from 0-50% (instead of 0-100%).
This means brushes can only be rotated 180º, instead of the full 360º. For plain round or square brushes, this may not be such a problem, however for shaped brushes this obviously creates a severe limitation.
As an example, if you're painting on a layer mask with a grass brush in order to blend an object, because you're only able to rotate the brush 180º, you can't use that brush for all sides. That's obviously only one scenario, however the same would be true for lots of different types of brushes, I.E. Hair brushes, fur brushes, arrow brushes, etc. where they need the full 360 degree rotation.
Additionally, there also doesn't appear to be a way to flip a brush on the X or Y axis either, although having the ability to flip a brush maybe more of a 'feature request' than bug per se.
Please see attached screenshot.
-
Yes - all settings are put into a single dialogue box.
All you need to do is rename the descriptions for each slider to something more meaningful, as per my previous post.
Now I see what you mean.
The problem with that is not only would it be a long-winded process renaming each individual field, I would prefer to just stick with the standard slider names for each tool. Therefore I'd still prefer each filter to have it's own dialogue box that the macro launches in a sequential order.
-
Dasim,
When you select the eye icon, you can rename the slider's description to something more meaningful.
Hope that helps (a little).
It's probably easier to show what I mean with a screenshot. As they say, a picture tells a thousand something, something.
-
As people have mentioned in other posts, it could really do with a way to rename layers when recording a Macro. However, I would go one step further and suggest not only being able to rename layers, but also have the ability to move the layers to change the layer order, select particular layers, etc. during recording too.
Following on from that, it's missing the ability to 'Insert Menu Item', which is equally important when creating macros. As an example, it's possible to record a macro that will resize the document based on what values you enter, however if you just want the macro to bring up the Resize Document dialogue box for the user to enter their own dimensions, there doesn't appear to be a way. If there was an 'Insert Menu Item' option like in Photoshop, you could then select 'Insert Menu Item' > Document > Resize Document, this would then prompt the macro to just open the dialogue box, and then after the user enters the dimensions and hits 'apply' the rest of the macro would continue playing.
Another example would be if part of a macro involves a sharpening step, you would be able to use 'Insert Menu Item' > View > Zoom > 100%, which would automatically change the image view to actual pixel size right before the sharpening step, then afterwards use 'Insert Menu Item' > View > Zoom > Zoom To Fit, to automatically display the entire image on screen for the next step of the macro. Additionally it could also be used to prompt saving the image at the end of the macro by using 'Insert Menu Item' > File > Export. Obviously, there are lots of additional possibilities by being able to insert a menu item.
I have noticed that some filters such as Gaussian Blur, Unsharp Mask, etc. allow you to click the cog icon after recording a macro and then select the 'eye' to allow the user to adjust the sliders during macro playback. However, if you use more than one, it won't just sequentially go through them one by one and allow you to adjust them individually, it just dumps all the settings into one dialogue box, where you don't even know what settings are what. I just added Gaussian Blur, Unsharp Mask and Twirl macros (all with 'eyes' selected) to the library to see what would happen and when played back was met with a single dialogue box with three different 'Radius' sliders... Each filter should really have it's own dialogue box that the macro launches in a sequential order.
Another thing that seems to be missing is the ability to 'Insert Stop'. Although this is not something that I use particularly often, it can be useful for adding notes to macros. For example, to insert a stop with a note saying "In the following step, keep the threshold slider above 20 to prevent haloing", etc. Or use it to pause the macro midway to allow the user to manually paint on the layer mask before continuing with the next steps in the macro.
And finally a couple of smaller items to do with the macro library. Settings in the library should be sticky. So if you collapse a category, it stays collapsed, otherwise every time you go to use the library you end up with a big list of macros. And lastly having the ability to assign shortcut keys to macro's that are saved in the library would be a welcome addition too.
-
I would like to request the ability to import/export palettes in .ACO file format, as this format appears to be the most universally accepted file format for colour palettes.
At the moment I'm able to freely share colour palettes such as skin tone palettes, etc. between Photoshop and Clip Studio Paint in .ACO file format. Affinity Photo however, will only deal with .ASE or .AFPALETTE formats and even then, can only export to .AFPALETTE. This means that if I replace Photoshop with Affinity Photo, there will be no way for me to share colour palettes between Affinity Photo and Clip Studio Paint. If Affinity Photo were to support import/export of .ACO files then this issue would obviously be mitigated.
-
I second this suggestion.
A flexible batch rename tool like the one in Bridge that allows you to use 'Date Taken' data to create part of the file name (I.E. 2016-12-31--IMG_0001.tif).
-
I was thinking of starting a new topic about a similar issue, however as my question is of a similar nature, I think it would probably be better to post it in here instead.
Even after turning off "Show this Panel on Startup", Affinity Photo still tries to make outbound connections to crashes.seriflabs.com and s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com every single time Affinity Photo is started. I appreciate that telemetry is invaluable to you and helps you to improve your products, however I would like to disable telemetry/automatic update checking. Therefore, please can you advise on how to disable this from within Affinity Photo?
-
How do you change the User Interface font size in Affinity Photo (1.5.0.45) on Windows?
According to the help file, the option should be in Edit > Preferences > User Interface > Font UI Size, but it appears to be missing?
-
Ciao PaoloThank you for your reply. I looked at a few Affinity Designer videos, however they seemed more geared towards using vector tools that work much like the pen tool in Photoshop (I.E. Clicking anchor points and dragging Bezier handles). So I take it that Affinity Designer can also be used for freehand inking, like with the G-pen in Clip Studio Paint?
-
I'm considering retiring Photoshop CS4 in favour of Affinity Photo when it's released for Windows, hence why I'm here, but am curious how far Affinity Photo's tools stretch for digital drawing/painting too? Although I'm not new to image editing, one thing that has recently started to peak my interest is digital drawing/painting. However, as it's something that I haven't paid much attention to before, I am a complete newbie when it comes to that.
As an example, here's a video of an artist who used Photoshop for a long time, but recently started using Manga Studio (now called Clip Studio Paint) for drawing due to it's better drawing brushes, etc.. The brushes he seems to use most often are pencils for sketching (5:15 & 10:35), G-pen for inking (12:00) and transparent watercolour for blending/shading (15:42). Here they are in real-life use (Note: Link may or may not be safe for work depending what country you live in).
I assume Affinity Photo contains brushes that are capable of producing good results for sketching and blending. However the Manga Studio brushes also seem to have brush stabilisation and the G-pen seems to have a mode to use it as a vector brush. Do the Affinity Photo brushes have stabilisation and a vector brush tool (or are there any plans to introduce them)? A quick search brought up the following posts, which seem to suggest no?
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/10152-brush-stabilizer/
-
I don't know if this will help, but here is an introduction video in Italian on Affinity Photo.
(Tu parli Inglese benissimo. Non so se questo aiuterà, ma qui è un video introduttivo in Italiano su Affinity Photo)
-
Glad to hear that layered TIFF's are coming in 1.5.
As a Windows users, I am yet to try Affinity Photo, however if as per SFO's reply it isn't already an option to save TIFF files with LZW compression, then this also needs to be considered as an option for 8-bit TIFF's (for 16-bit TIFF's, LZW compression isn't relevant as it will make the file size both larger and slower to open than even the uncompressed file).
Pencil brushes
in Pre-V2 Archive of Affinity on Desktop Questions (macOS and Windows)
Posted
When creating your own brush nozzles, what's the optimal resolution to save them in?
I noticed that the nozzle in post No.2 is 256 X 256. However, as document resolutions get larger and larger and therefore the size of brushes used get larger and larger, would making a nozzle 1000 X 1000 be more future proof?