SrPx

I handle the wacom now almost as I'd do on paper (and I trained mostly on paper, so..). I'd say the issue, more than the texture of the paper, is the coordination of hand-eye-screen. That's why a ton of people find it easier to use a display-pen (ie, cintiq, or XP-PEN 22, Yiynova, Huion or etc) rather than a pen-tablet. Even with a cintiq or alternative, your hand control is still of much higher "resolution", way less jittery than the best wacom solution today. That's what you notice, and is not your fault. It requires certain long term training with a wacom or similar. The path is shorter with a cintiq or cintiq alternative, as you paint in way more similar to traditional drawing and painting, but I am in this belief of pen-tablets not only being cheaper, they're in my opinion also healthier (eyesight, back, and neck). Even more the case with small screens like the Cintiq 13" or ANY iPad Pro. The wonders gained in technology are lost by the small screen. Remember you can also activate line smoothing. I don't have an issue now with even accurate, detailed ink line art (in CSP I don't need line smoothing anymore (probably it already averages the line in zero value)), and if anything, only slight line smoothing (probably matching the only bit needed to compensate the magnetic tablet system. As I've no line shaking at all in paper) when using something like A. Photo or similar. The procedure I lately recommend to all going traditional---> digital is this : Start with heavy line smoothing setting. Practically all important painting software apps do have it today. Then, go forcing yourself into lowering that setting, never past the line where you 'd feel uncomfortable or doing too many "tries" for each line (btw, is a total joy when you don't need the tries anymore). so that you can have more freshness and control over the line. At some point you don't need it that much. The first area to notice improvements will be in digital painting. As is not that much important there (maybe yes in your case as you are doing a hand painted but cartoony style, relying very much in hard edges). You would start reducing the line smoothing setting when digitally painting. Then, will do so also with line-art / comics (the latter require much moire training) The hand-brain system gets used to it. Is one of the areas where the lizard part of the brain takes action. It does not give a warning... You just keep trying and, as is slow, you don't notice, but you are getting more and more accurate. So, best advice : Draw and/or paint, a lot with your tablet. And the better control appears. Just try to do my trick of go lowering very day or every week a bit the line smoothing. Is an absolutely essential feature : in some cases you do need yes or yes, as is a type of line you would also struggle with in paper. But is mostly a nice helper in the learning and skill training process. Before I just did look at it as a remedy for a bad hardware implementation (which it is). Today my view has expanded: Is it exactly that, but also a software (a feature) helper in the path of getting your best crafting with a wacom or the like. Good for you and everyone else, that Affinity added it to Photo. Sorry, the full time freelancer mindset. At some point I need to realize I'm in a world full of people working 9 to 5 (or having "a real job", as some say ;D ) The quality you are aiming at is high, though. I wouldn't trash the income plan for later on.... About tablets...I'd very highly recommend NOT to use a small wacom tablet. Or small, in general. Bare minimum should be a 170 bucks Wacom Medium, or, better, a slightly bigger XP-PEN Deco 03 (100 bucks) But my ideal of all times is a Wacom Intuos Pro L (between 500 and 600 euros). True that my intuos 4 XL is way too much. Must be of the likes of many like me, as is a rare case of an old "4" model still being sold officially at the Wacom's store ! Yet I recon, XL is huge for most desktops. Probably the two golden purchases would be a Deco 03 or the Wacom I. Pro L. I know that for line work and accuracy, a large tablet is very important. A cintiq or alternative shall do even better, if it is a good one. I just dislike painting on a screen, think it has too many cons. For just, ONLY , digital painting, I'd say most people are fine with a Wacom Medium or XP-PEN Deco 03. I wouldn't be the cheap bastard which I am with the machine (my pc) for the case of the drawing device : Purchasing a Wacom Small defeats the purpose, unless you only do pixel art, vectors of photo retouch.

I would tend to believe that Walt was referring mostly to the business side of it, the large implications, costs, etc. Rather than solely the technical side of it. ( not sure also if after started and evolved so mucch such deep and large projects like a very complex and optimized graphic engine like this and entire set of apps around it, using quite specific libraries (.net being one of the things), would be too much fun and joy for them, right now (opposed to have been doing it from start, as many open source projects do, today). Mostly, if that titanic effort pays what it would cost... (IMO, surely in the line of what Walt was talking about... )

As some times, due to the amount of information, people gets to see only one of the several threads that are talking about basically the same matter, I thought I'd link here a post from a Serif's staff member, just 6 hours ago, about this whole thing :

Oh, we have a word for all this in Spanish, and yep, we typically use a single word...... hehehe... no worries, I like/need you fixing my broken Spanglish. The day you wouldn't, I'd be stuck with just Chrome highlighting stuff that it thinks is too American or too British, or worse: Distastefully Spanish. All of it without the depth of "Alfredrly"....

Gimp is making special big progress this year. I'm aware they are almost completely sure adding a CMYK mode (thanks to GEGL library, the team, and a particular programmer's project), finally, and they have been adding pretty advanced stuff (lots of photo retouch stuff to Gimp) in other areas. Inkscape is a very interesting vector application. It does even better some things than their commercial counter parts. If you made such jump (I'm also a maxer, worked using it at several companies, and I also switched to Blender, in 2002. I use it for very serious, pro level projects, today, ) But I have kept using Adobe and Autodesk at companies. I suspect that you need it for personal work. I have handled Gimp and Inkscape at companies where they did not want to purchase more licenses han the seats they already had. If you are that committed (turns out I've discovered most people that say so, really haven't, not saying you are one of those) take the time to really see the potential of Gimp and Inkscape (and Scribus, Krita, Synfig, Davinci Resolve,etc). This totally demands from the user to stand the first month and a half cursing on the UI (/s), so that the user begins to see HOW is it useful, becomes familiar with it , and starts using it to its best advantages and strengths. Is a common factor with all software, but very specially, particularly with open source, as you have already discovered with Blender. Is not that different from the others, similar effort, even Blender is harder as is deeper. But you did it. Because you really wanted to go for it. You need to want it with the others, it's as simple as that. Because in a 99.9% of the people that say these tools are not worth it, they don't know them deeply enough. Only a very tiny percentage of people ( of the naysayers) have used those for professional printing, games, web design at high level, etc. I have done so, and with similar high requirements as I extensively did with Adobe and Autodesk products, for so many years. Due to their hard UIs, those graphic linux applications (closed and open source) are underrated as heck, mostly by lazy people not willing to go the extra mile to really go SERIOUSLY for an option (this includes REGULAR donation, too ! Linux does not really need it, but graphic apps do, because they receive very little attention from Linux powers that be ( which today, are VERY powerful), neither support from Linux companies (a bunch of which, today, are wealthy and powerful)) , meaning, to really go all the way for Linux .

Why using sRGB ? Is a quite smaller range... I mean... for such high detail work, and this kind of thing... I'd work in the highest and the best, the more time possible. Use sRGB, CMYK, and even 8 bits for a very final step. Even more the case JPG format. All of these mean some sort of quality reduction (JPG very specially, it can add tons of artifacts) I mean, I'd work in 16 bits, Adobe RGB ( I know there are others, but this one has a good ratio of color space and compatibility with other applications). Once the piece is finished, if needed, I export to sRGB, for example, for showing in the web with the peace of mind of it looking well in most platforms. But as a last step ! 5 seconds before a final export, only, is when I'd move to sRGB. And if your machine allows it, for this kind of work I would not move from 16 bits. Not downwards, at least. (again, surely yep to 8 bits, sRGB but only at export time. If I get my workflow with whatever the tools to allow a dithered conversion). Even way much more the case for CMYK, where a ton of these gradients will see banding unless done the conversion with dithering. But if needing to print a work like this in offset, man, I'd really make an study on how to export this well in a CMYK file, with the profile, level of ink, etc requested by whatever the print company. Heavy editing to get it right, surely. I'd never ever use a JPG as an intermediate step while editing. Not even close to the end. Heck, I don't even use JPG as a final export unless strongly requested, or... for my portfolio site. And often trash it and use instead a lovely PNG.(after all, the site pics are small graphics). But I keep thinking in raster... Still , a lot of stuff surely applies.... And is just ...opinions.

Unless Serif surprises us in a real big way in this matter, I don't see that happening any time soon.... ( as mentioned, I believe they have some tactic milestones better to cover, previous to that.... After all, is a small staff, is not Adobe's...) Meanwhile, I am re-discovering Affinity PHOTO as GREAT for painting.... At least, in the way I am able to paint ( I use many styles, btw, so, this means, anyone in whatever the type of art, with enough capability to adapt workflows can do ... WHATEVER in Photo. Is that versatile, right now.) Specially euphoric now that I generated a trick that avoid the single only issue remaining in the way for me, UNTIL THE OTHER DAY, as a barrier (it's in the link in my signature) . While... there were MORE issues, long time ago, in Photo. But... the line smoothing, and tons of improvements that progressively and organically they keep adding, have reverted, happily, the situation... for me Photo WORKS now for painting.... GREATLY. IMO, that's all that matters. I recommend everyone it for the task. The super important matter for any pro here and out there: Not only works as it always did, for a large number of fields in image editing... for me, it already also is good enough for all sorts of painting. For 50 bucks, no subscription. This is beyond revolutionary. About your suggestion... Well, I don't fully disagree. But I know how many illustrators, like me, are so used to illustrating in Photoshop. Many very, very high end pros, having worked in top companies, or at least, doing top high end profiles. How they really really feel at home with the complex and powerful layers system in Photo, its very advanced selection and mask system, and an infinite etc. I work in this, is not a hobby, and geez, is it in a good state, right now !!! . I can't understand people not putting the 50 bucks in it. Is a steal.

Problem is, those are trade marks ( I guess), logotypes, IP from Serif. You totally need a contract, an agreement of some sort where Serif allows you in written words to use those, for a very specified (in the contract) and delimited purpose, surely some lawyer work needed in the middle. (the likes of forum members are not what you need to be allowed to do that) Now, if you convince Serif to prepare and sign such contract, yep, sure thing. (I don't see that happening, tho, wild guess) Edit: The whole above IF I understood well the idea. Which might be not the case. I have this one lonely and overstressed neuron doing all the work in that empty space.

For allusions (maybe?) , as I have been a big contender ( but I do my requests, too!) against some complaining posts (from many), my position is not really of fanboy nature. Even while debated against some of your points strongly in the past. Not with that kind of time and energy, anymore, tho. But am certainly an optimistic grunt. I tend to see the glass half full rather than half empty, having been fighting (at jobs, at companies, high stress, full responsibility) with much harder and poor open source , mid cost and freeware in the past, so much that became used to generate my workarounds everywhere (btw, this is specific companies, and at home. The majority of my experience is with the dominant tools: Adobe suite, Autodesk suite, etc). I focus in how much these young tools are evolving under the hood. And the new entire world that they open to artists. Is more of a case that I have full confidence on that they really care about any actual issue. But I'm feeling less and less eager to debate some things... (btw, with the lorry truck loads of ppl I've worked with, freelancing and at 10 companies, yet to find a single one that considers me "unqualified" in the fields I work at (I'm an unqualified dancer, that's for sure...) ... No worries , I read your apologies, I know ppl can write whatever when in the heat of the moment... ) Wish I was getting paid by Serif, haha. PS: Don't take too seriously this post of mine....

Even more... I have seen JPG artifacts, then I realized is a JPG. Have you tried to see what happens to PNG. I believe is unrelated, but some JPG exporters can do weird things like a banding. It's key to know if you observe the banding in your original scene.

Did you try to convert a flattened raster file (ie, export to Affinity Photo) , convert it to sRGB (assuming you are already working in Adobe RGB, not cmyk), and then see if it looses there some quality (your software will do that conversion much better than the browser) once seen here, in this thread. What could be going wrong (and yet not be the culprit of the banding, or yep) is that IMO the best way to go is exporting a raster to Photo, and converting to sRGB, as most browsers and devices do deal well with sRGB. Anyway, if Chrome/firefox can manage a adobe rgb file from default, we could be loosing some vivid colors when converting to sRGB.

Well, typically one had to activate color management in the browser to display sth in Adobe RGB or etc, if not it degrades to sRGB. Firefox was one of the first to add this. But today I believe the color management system comes ready by default in Chrome and Firefox? I dunno. But if I save your image to disk, it still shows the banding, very clear when zooming in, outside the browser, so, imo, we can discard the browser as a viewing glitch culprit. Maybe in your shoes, in this order, I'd hide the background layer, convert the file to Adobe RGB, then change to 16 bits. Then create a new layer, produce a similar 3-tones-3-canvas-corners smooth gradient like the one you had, now under a 16 bits mode and that color profile. I'd check if in that very case, it still happens. Could the physical size of the document, in pixels or dpi, affect the quality of the gradients and/or raster effects ? I ask, as I don't know right now... I mean, if would be of benefit, despite being in vectors, to use a larger canvas. (that good be a buggy status of the thing, but seen that happening in other apps. Certainly not in Photoshop)

Having worked in a bunch of profiles, I have to say rarely use any tools cycling. IMO, is more the benefit (even if just an optional, non default preference check box) of not accidentally switching to latest tool, than what you could cause by loosing that functionality. You can always set a shortcut for each. Also, maybe yep with smudge<->brush, but not so common to be constantly jumping to pixel tool. In photography, you rarely need edgy hard pixels, and in pixel art, you never do smooth edges of a brush. (anyway, that's a side note of mine, digressing from the point) Also, about the "go back to prev tool if you happen to hit the key twice" , being the access to each tool so random, and with so many tools, that going to previous tool might prove useful only in a handful of scenarios. Anyway, I actually mentioned the idea of adding as a preferences' option. But perhaps is a too core thing as to disable or enable in preferences (the going back to the previous tool thing if hitting the key twice). ppl with a very fast workflow in painting, extensively using key shortcuts for everything, we often double tap by error or habit.... Or are just constantly switching (but not with any "pattern", so, the going back to prev. tool, not so useful) between eraser and brush. In that fast use, is super normal to hit twice the same key. If can be added as a non default option in prefs, that would rock. Other than that, is nothing that really worries me. I see other things as more important...

In raster, converting to 16 bits might not help, if done after the fact. Is more of a case of doing gradients, or anything requiring very smooth transitions (soft shadows, etc...lol, the times I've seen cuts in those due to trying to do that in CMYK mode), producing them while being in a 16 bits mode, and wide color space,, and then, if needed, convert to a smaller range (like sRGB or CMYK), hopefully with dithering applied in the actual conversion. In vectors, not sure how it works, as also, I don't know how "dynamic" are the AD raster effects. It's a wild guess, a shot in the dark, tho. My usage of AD or any other vector tool is much more....traditional, so to speak. Usually flat inks, simple gradients -if any- . Ie, more for logo creations, icons, typical boring corporate image stuff. So, not familiar with certain uses. (partly as I typically do this kind of thing in raster, so, I can only admire going for it with vectors)

I was referring to gradients in the background (more evident), not in the toy.... In raster , in CMYK banding happens very often (in whatever the software). It has quite fewer tones. In RGB 8 bits, can happen too (unrelated to the fact that many cheapo monitors are not capable to display several gradients of different tones at a time in screen, due to crappy hardware). Typically, (in raster apps) I tend to convert to RGB 16 bits wen that starts being a problem (not often, in my type of projects). Even I do so for later on convert back to 8 bits.(if I can, with dithering on) It may also happen more in sRGB than Adobe RGB. I'd convert to CMYK -if needed- only at the end, and with dithering enabled for the conversion. which tends to kill any banding. (but that used to be in PS)

Thank you ! That's a tablet I have been researching a lot for... Is it the "E" version ? Does it work well in A. Photo ?

I still think is way faster to fully paint it all, not a single help from 3D (not even as reference). And I believe it by experience (3D modeler, texturer, "renderer" and illustrator,comic artist). In the long run, is better developing a fast drawing and coloring (if applies) technique. But I believe is an admirable effort. Also, being a 3D geek, I love anything using low pol and hand painted textures. For a comic, doing this approach, I'd never use millions of tris. Don't need those... just proper texturing. Also, if the output is comic, no harm in painterly retouch after the render.... As you seem to go after a painterly comic, not a line art based industry standard (manga, american superheros or darker themes, now a bit mainstream too). A benefit is (in pure 3D)... you could easily make a some seconds animation for promo material, would make the comic sell a ton better, specially if using a Youtube channel to promote it. And sth like that, definitely rocks for a Kickstarter project (been at 3 already...er...successfully, haha) , as the main thing people tend to look first is the video. That said, when doing a comic KS, is enough some good After Effects, Davinci , Htfilm or whatever with just average skill, and use the existing 2D artwork cleverly (even just some pans and zooms, some effects, just not horrid rotoscoping as some do, lol), some good sound track, contract some good narrator (is not outstandingly expensive, it is worth it a lot).

Yep, that's how most of us tend to work. Also, I'm a sort of hoarder of stupid habits... I often click twice (or more) a key shortcut to use another tool. There the toggle breaks the workflow. And yep, even worse when you don't realize and screw something else, needing a going back in history or realize/see if you can fix what you screwed... Even in the best scenario, this, or when the alt color picking does not really grab the color as was done too fast, are things that force loosing the focus on the work, the canvas. That's quite bad...

I'm curious... Why PDF doesn't work for you? And I mean, I am interested, genuinely curious about it. Mostly as I am doing projects, exporting as PDF, and it all seems correct here, both from all the 3 Affinity products... but I might be missing a lot of stuff... So, I'd like to know... I'm versed in this kind of things, but had used less Affinity line in my workflows... till now. Why is that? If one hits the "more" button in PDF's Affinity export, one can set not to rasterize anything.... Maybe they rasterize them not knowing how to deal with some things in their side ? (another genuine question)

Her lipstick color is trying to match (actually remind, more than match) her hair color, in the original... (and she somehow looks like less of a redhead, some people might find it "less her", if so...Even if is very subtle)... other than that, great work....

Absolutely amazing. Specially as done with just vectors... Is it my monitor or some crappy browser profile in my side, or I am seeing banding in the background, top left area ? PD: Just zoomed in.... it seems is in the original file, together with dithering, too....

Ouch. That's a brush.

I find the line control to be better in Photo than Designer... Its smoothing control works best for me, too.

Glad to read from another illustrator/comic artist, welcome! The more the merrier [We are Legion ].... I'm also a Clip Studio Pro user.(the Ex full animation addition is interesting, but I tend to prefer the animation suite be sth apart with its entire dedicated UI....The only key thing it adds for me is importing multi-layered CMYK files (but as lately, I only convert from RGB at the very end, not a biggie, either). The epub production is surely important for many). The feel of the brush in CSP , performance (also *key, for me and most digital painters* in color picker), is very hard to match. Still, I can understand the migration, as an illustrator (and/or comic artist) who needs often other features. IMO is the case of most people doing this seriously, for a living, or serious side business. I can understand that you feel attracted by their vector solution, Designer, as Manga art gets a lot of benefit from vectors ( and probably you extensively use CSP's vector features). Anyway, I need to say I prefer a lot more the 1:1 you get with stroke made / stroke that shows up in Affinity Photo rather than in Designer. And if you have been using quite CSP, well, that's a raster solution, not a vector based one. For me, for all my painting, illustration and comic works it makes a lot more sense to use Photo. But I believe Serif understands (not criticizing it) more that Designer is for drawing and painting, Photo for... photography (and general image editing). It happens that a crazy ton of comic artists, matte painters, concept artists, illustrators and digital painters prefer the raster approach. Reason why an overwhelming number of comic artists, very professional ones, use Photoshop (and other raster solutions), as well as tons of concept artists, illustrators, and matter painters (and many more profiles, leaving several out). The majority I know, use raster tools : Corel Painter, Photoshop, and Clip Studio Paint ! are the most used (well, a bunch use yet Open Canvas or Sai Paint Tool). So, even while I sense this focus here, for a collection of reasons, in my surely not very (or at all) popular opinion, Photo is a better choice for all of that. Now, illustration of modern style (less realistic/painterly, or comic where control over the line is less key) is more a case of Designer, very clearly.(yet you could do those styles with Photo!.... but quie a harder path to do digital painting with A. Designer). For comics, very specially Manga, I can see how Designer is quite a good path (pun intended). Still, as I say, I quite prefer the line control I get in Photo. (and IMO, the one in CSP is not beat yet by anything on this planet (Photoshop, Art Rage, Sketchbook, Rebelle 3 and Painter included), of all what I have been able to test, and I have some sort of OCD for testing new tools... The importance of certain features is such, for actual real scenarios (gigs, projects), that I am ready to not miss all those painterly features (which I can replicate with techniques based in core brush), in exchange for similar-to Photoshop functionality (even if they don't pursuit that, neither market it so) which is not subscription based, and which overall product and company approach I really prefer. Even ready to loose the divine line response in CSP, (not completely true, I don't see myself doing ink line art in other thing than CSP for a long time...:P ....But that's the magic of import/export, and the fact I don't care so much working with several products if the workflow is smooth.), as for digital painting is less of an issue not getting the crazily good brush feel/control you get in CSP. I will never regret having purchased both Photo and Designer (I still work mostly with CSP, though). They complement each other, and are of extreme value and quality. Lately, even Publisher (while not recommended as is a beta) saved a complex situation for a project I'm in... Solved the situation there were seems the high end competitor does not cut it ! I found that using a combo of the 3 (AP, AD and CSP) is what works best for me...

PS does little to nothing as a live filter... I'm just getting used to avoid those here. (you can understand is a need for me, if you compare your machine with mine . BTW, congrats, is a fast CPU for Adobe... in Affinity, is not so much the highest clock, which of course, but also the number of cores ) . I don't know... for me, all inconveniences, differences in UI, lack of comfort for not being used to it etc.. still worth it to avoid a subscription system, and a bit of abusing on the number of TSR software installed without asking, resources/memory usage, and many other habits which that other one has got with the years... But this is very personal. IMO, that's why a bunch of people go back to the cloud, and other stay...I can't criticize any take at it, if I think it well.