ms.fuentecilla

EMRECS: I just want to enlarge parts supplied in a pdf folder for rehearsal so that I can read them more easily, in short to print them larger on each page. So I just need the original opened as an image in any Affinity programme. Quite simple. If I try file place, Walt, only one page (the title) is placed not all pages contained in the pdf file, which I might have expected. Pass through mode seems not available as part of any menu I can find. Editing pdf in Affinity is new to me, so I am really searching! What I mean by gibberish is one symbol repeated on the staves without any resemblance to musical notation, suggesting your comment about the need for fonts perhaps. I don't know what software was used to make the pdf's. The only way I have been able to do anything so far is by printing from Acrobat in the original pdf and reducing the printer's margin setting. Bit frustrating. It perhaps reveals a limitation in Affinity handling of pdf format and a limitation in my knowledge of pdf. Thank you for your replies. I shall keep trying because I have to learn this music for a performance! Happy New Year Michael Wienerwald.complete.pdf

Please can someone tell me how to get pdf music files into publisher without it converting everything to gibberish? I need to make enlarged prints! Photo does the same when I import pdf instead of opening them as image files. Such efficiency at 'conversion' is laudable but not required in this instance!

Walt: No use is made of such software, so that doesn't really apply. This remains an enigma and really needs a programmer's intervention probably.

Paul EC: Thank you. That was correct and all is present. So now how do I get Publisher to see this please? RC-R: That doesn't really explain why the update wouldn't install itself in the original folder in the first place, since every other update has successfully done so. However, as you see the licence has been found.

It seems to me that if Photo operates successfully on its own it must have access to the licence code. What seems to be at fault is Publisher, which for some unknown reason is unable to access that code, whatever it is called and wherever it is placed. The ones suggested are not in Win10 Program Files.

RC-R: Yes. It won't uninstall completely. There is in fact only one installation, the other is a fragment that the Affinity system refused to remove. Also, it would not permit me to update into that folder in the first place, which is the reason for all this. Hope this completes your info. I have been using computers and windows for long enough to know that endless patience is sometimes needed, though these days the frustrations tend to far, far fewer. Thanks to all for your suggestions. I feel Carl123 in his freedom has the correct answer. However, neither of these can be found by Search. So perhaps a Serif programmer can suggest a way out please?

Walt.Farrell: There was a problem installing the last major update of Photo, which necessitated using a different folder, which I reported at the time but had no feedback. What I then did was rename the folders so that the operative version was once again Photo and the remaining old version, which I couldn't fully uninstall became Photo 1. That shows on the first screenshot. Each individual programme functions perfectly well. The situation with Publisher, which is embarrassing at the moment as I prepare a portfolio, is the one apparent malfunction. I have been using the software since its inception and before that in beta following the demise of the earlier Serif graphics software suite.

RCR: It runs perfectly!

Not so I'm afraid. It still insists I must buy Photo. Not only that the Buy link doesn't even permit me to enter my purchase code to rectify this irritating failure

Sorry forgot the screen shot

Hello I have the full Affinity suite installed on my PC but when I try to use Photo in Publisher I get this error screen. All software is fully up to date and the system is Win10, also fully up to date. How do I get this to work please?

I have another minor issue with this overlay problem. It is that having uninstalled the original the current release version of Photo it was not possible to reinstall into the same folder, for some reason best known to Serif. It was necessary to make a new folder, Photo2, then change that to Photo having changed the original to Photo1 - good old windows methodology. As a result the Thumbnail ceased to be available in my W10 menu. Can this be remedied? And is there a better way of replacing? I have not experienced this when replacing other software. Walt: Yes. I checked the Beta version via About, and it remains 1.10.3. What then puzzles me is why then the Beta, when started, wanted me to update with the same version I had just opened? W10 update problems perhaps? Thank you for all the answers. Incidentally you are reading the ms.fuentecilla as Ms Fuentecilla and then assuming my gender is female. I don't take any exception to this since Ms was originally intended to cover both genders, but ...

Ron pp: Then what did I download when invited to download the new Photo Beta update from Serif, which proceeded to amend the version reference? Also your second sentence makes little sense to me. Oh, yes, the new release version. More importantly: There are no problems with the brush overlay if files are converted from raw to tiff. In tiff files it functions excellently. There seem to be quite a number of difficulties AP experiences with raw files. All my images are considerably processed, as far as possible in their raw state when flexibility is maximised. Once in jpeg this is lost.

This does not occur in the new AP Beta

This also happens in the new AP beta, so no escape

This failure disappeared for a time but has again started. I am up to date W10, up to date AP from Serif. The image either AWR or ORF simply fails to materialise in AP. It could be a Windows problem but doesn't occur with other software. 'File'-'Open' functions normally in AP. But this problem has never before happened. I see my initial opening paragraph was ambiguous. When already in AP and I right click an image file it fails to appear. If AP is not already open and I do the same both AP and the image file in it open quickly. I hope that is clearer.

There is suddenly a serious problem with the overlay brush tool. Immediately on touching the image this occurs and there is no control of its occurrence. I unistalled and reinstalled AP, which is a pain because one has to change folders but the same occurred. There are also other recurrent problems that I reported earlier.

A new problem has arisen with opening the last version of Affinity Photo. Right click and 'open with' fails from 'File explorer', as does 'Edit with ...' from within viewing software, both of which functioned well with previous versions. This gets tedious because AP returns to the head of a folder using 'File' 'Open' and not from the position last used in that folder.

I am experiencing some problems using focus stacking. In the component images (RAW format) the individual stacks have the requisite sharpness as far as is possible with my TG6 camera. However, the stacking order in Affinity Photo seems to put the least sharp image on top resulting, so far as I can see, in a muddy final stack. In what order does AP auto stack this final image?. Is it bottom to top or top to bottom as listed? My question is am I doing something wrong in Affinity Photo setting up the stack (or are the camera images just crap I don't put much faith in this Olympus camera. Either its firmware is poor or the sensor). Occasionally they come out well, so there is an inconsistency involved. I would welcome comment from others who use focus stacking via AP. Michael

Well, I didn't name the file, AP did that. It puzzles me rather than causes me any problem and is reported as a strange event from AP. A long time ago, several years, I had something similar from AP with a panorama. But thank you for your investigations, which prove interesting. The workflow was a straightforward focus stack which was saved as an Affinity Photo file. There was no renaming on my part Tom. And it was not uploaded as a deliberate puzzle. I don't have time for such. I shall look at changing the suffix to .tif out of interest in due course but probably the best would be to repeat the stack anyway since the components are not really photography. This is a weird little camera with many failings. I have just checked back and the request was for this to be exported as a tiff. The ORF suffix was what AP gave it

Precisely! It isn't an important file fortunately, merely testing a camera function. Bafflement!

This file type was saved by photo after processing a focus stack from Olympus TG6 in RAW (ORF) but it cannot open it. How is it possible for a file saved by the software to be then refused by the same software? _8290481stack.ORF

Thank you for your further interest Not My Fault. I have experimented further and obviously have obtained clean images processing in Photo. Using RAW the flexibility is considerable and the results impressive. What I remain unable to resolve, without access to a scanner currently is whether the soft definition is the fault of the original or the lens used for copying. I do use both the clarity and high pass filters. I have read that enlarger lenses have very high definition capabilities but John (above) challenges this. I shall look up the Nikon tool. Maybe it will work also with Sony lenses or Nikon lenses with Sony/Pentax adaptors. The equipment I am using with adaptors is high quality Pentax original and in perfect condition, like the rest of my Pentax LX gear. It looks as though the Nikon ES-2 could be used on any macro lens. Now that Covid restrictions here have eased it becomes possible for me to travel down to a friend in the south and experiment with her slide scanner, with which they are very pleased. That should at least resolve issues related to definition. My Epson packed up due to the humidity and heat of Almeria, but I read that is also rather time consuming. Is that correct? Although copying with a digital camera should give optimal results and is very fast, the post processing with no infra red spotting available is time consuming, even with the superb inpainting brush of Photo. It has become necessary to dispose of many of the slides - they fill two large office cupboards 2 metres high - but we would like to have the best of them available as high quality digital copies which require fractional space. I am very appreciative of the advice being given. It is an interesting quest! This work is currently somewhat intermittent due to the need for rehearsals with related practice.

Hello Faultless and John Thank you for these helpful suggestions. To comment first on John's, scanning is a much slower process than photographing with a 24mp digital camera. It takes me about 5 seconds for each slide. And yes, indeed, probably the macro lens will ultimately prove the way to go. There is much comment available about using enlarger lenses but one can never be certain about the skills and demands. Answering NotMyFault - a fail all pseudonym if there ever was one! Like it! - Indeed I use both Clarity and High Pass settings. There might be some curvature of the dia but the definition seems uniformly soft rather than variably so and I use the optimal aperture of the lenses (gained by testing). They are mounted on Pentax macro bellows (relic from my LX camera) with slide copying attachment on a tripod, therefore rigid. I have been using Photo since its inception and whilst I don't explore some of its more exotic montage capabilities do exploit it fully for photographs and abstracts, for which it is very good. There is no body stabilization on my Sony A6300, so that is not an issue and ISO is indeed restricted to 100. Anyway, the outcome would seem to be the possibility that the originals are not good, though they were printed at A3 successfully for exhibition and that getting good results should be possible. I was beginning to doubt it! I shall look up the Nikon Coolscan LS50 and Plus Tech. Spanish marine mountain climate over a period of years destroyed my scanners and probably Netherlands weather will be more gentle. Out of camera files are rather large, at 24Mb. I shall try further and then return to this topic and your helpful remarks. Perhaps I can borrow a macro lens to try but I am not a member of any club here (they wanted a CV the equivalent of applying for a Civil Service Executive position!). Again thank you both Michael

Does anyone use Affinity Photo in the process of copying slides. I have an enormous archive, some professional, and printing on Cibachrome was always good and focused. Many of these I now want digitised and am using my Sony Alpha 24 megapixel camera with macro bellows and high quality enlarging lenses, the ones used for the Cibachromes. The results viewed on my screen do not appear to have good definition. Do sharp slides really produce sharp digitised copies or am I expecting too much? The copies are RAW images processed in AP. Do others get soft results? Michael