ms.fuentecilla

Having looked at the Canva website, I think this is when I return to Adobe. Brash, noisy, thoroughly unprofessional. A very sad occasion. So-long and thanks for all the fish!
However, it has been a pleasure that I shall remember, working with Serif Affinity from its inception following their transition from the old editing programmes. It has been interesting and rewarding. Such a shame it had to be taken over, whatever the words. I have experienced those words quite a few times. They remain valid for a few months, no more.

Having looked at the Canva website, I think this is when I return to Adobe. Brash, noisy, thoroughly unprofessional. A very sad occasion. So-long and thanks for all the fish!
However, it has been a pleasure that I shall remember, working with Serif Affinity from its inception following their transition from the old editing programmes. It has been interesting and rewarding. Such a shame it had to be taken over, whatever the words. I have experienced those words quite a few times. They remain valid for a few months, no more.

Having looked at the Canva website, I think this is when I return to Adobe. Brash, noisy, thoroughly unprofessional. A very sad occasion. So-long and thanks for all the fish!
However, it has been a pleasure that I shall remember, working with Serif Affinity from its inception following their transition from the old editing programmes. It has been interesting and rewarding. Such a shame it had to be taken over, whatever the words. I have experienced those words quite a few times. They remain valid for a few months, no more.

Having looked at the Canva website, I think this is when I return to Adobe. Brash, noisy, thoroughly unprofessional. A very sad occasion. So-long and thanks for all the fish!
However, it has been a pleasure that I shall remember, working with Serif Affinity from its inception following their transition from the old editing programmes. It has been interesting and rewarding. Such a shame it had to be taken over, whatever the words. I have experienced those words quite a few times. They remain valid for a few months, no more.

Having looked at the Canva website, I think this is when I return to Adobe. Brash, noisy, thoroughly unprofessional. A very sad occasion. So-long and thanks for all the fish!
However, it has been a pleasure that I shall remember, working with Serif Affinity from its inception following their transition from the old editing programmes. It has been interesting and rewarding. Such a shame it had to be taken over, whatever the words. I have experienced those words quite a few times. They remain valid for a few months, no more.

Hello all and thanks. The problem is that I had totally misunderstood the concept of 'Book' in Publisher and now realise that it isn't what I wanted. Sorry to take up your time and thank you again. Walt thank you especially for the warning. I hadn't anticipated that since there is no warning for it.

Hello
Revisiting some of my archive and revising using Photo v2 makes it vividly apparent just how much this software has been honed. This is especially noticeable in the panorama facility, always good but which is now seemingly flawless. Things that caused problems in 2019 go through with ease, the results appearing to be a high quality single image. This is not due to my improved skills but the care taken with the algorithms.

Thank you Dan C. I fully understand the situation about the pressures and further exploration brought me to what you suggest, resulting in a successful photo book.
The video tutorials are a good start because I had missed so many of the improvements. Will printed manuals also be produced or were the earlier ones not successful? 
Michael

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

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

The huge improvement in the handling of RAW image input into panorama creation in the new Beta (perhaps also earlier but I have been swamped with Brexit and residency issues) is most welcome. It really is a pleasure to use. Whatever you have done it is highly successful.
The best results are still obtained by developing RAW after controlling highlights and exporting into such as TIF  first because the Create panorama process still tends to white out highlights in RAW. It is the colour rendering that is so much improved because it no longer over saturates.

Hadn't noticed that and I didn't switch it on either, so unexpected. I think this might also apply to my subsequent submission.
Thank you Dan.

You might be amused and interested by this experience. Having serious problems with APhoto hanging on a pc laptop with 4Gb memory and 2.4GHz processor I decided to buy a new laptop. In the local shop I told them exactly what performance I wanted, i7 and minimum 8Gb. So I was asked what software I used to which I replied Serif Affinity Photo amongst others. The smart assistant then looked up your stated requirements of 2GB memory and a fairly basic processor and proceeded to argue for nearly half an hour that I needed only a basic laptop based on that information. We abandoned that, needless to say and I then bought via the internet. Perhaps your promotional information might be a little more precise? Because it is impossible to apply some processes to a large panorama with those basic requirements!
It runs perfectly on an i7 with 12 Gb!

I thought you might be interested to see this fantastic cyclonic result from a 3 frame vertical panorama

There seems to be some over compensation in Vertical panoramas emphasising curvature. The strange treatment of sunbursts has already been noted and you await information from me.

Obviously nobody uses such antiquated cameras,so no responses. But just in case anybody does encounter the problem it can be solved successfully (in the new beta anyway) using the channels selection technique, creating a selection mask to high contrast, deleting or copying the original sky and using it or substituting with the Epic Skies procedure.

Looking through my profile I see that most frequently I note discovered twitches. It would be difficult to imagine more enjoyable and sensible professional photographic editing software than Affinity Photo. Since changing to digital some years ago the advent of this programme has completely changed the way I handle images. It is like using a dark room without the hassle of chemicals and destroyed Cibachrome paper, in short it feels like photography again.
Michael

Looking through my profile I see that most frequently I note discovered twitches. It would be difficult to imagine more enjoyable and sensible professional photographic editing software than Affinity Photo. Since changing to digital some years ago the advent of this programme has completely changed the way I handle images. It is like using a dark room without the hassle of chemicals and destroyed Cibachrome paper, in short it feels like photography again.
Michael

A few problems with dropbox but I did manage a download to examine. 1.6.3.98 is similar to the better results I got from retries. My original concern was that alterations might have been made to algorithms but it seems not and this might be an inconsistency in my system. I repeat that I find this module of AP superb (which implies no criticism of its other qualities). I struggled for years trying to get similar results from Photoshop! Thank you Sean for your interest. I think this query can be closed, don't you?

After getting the panorama processing near perfect in the last iteration of the official programme the new beta seems to have reverted to over processing resulting in bleaching out of detail that is subsequently difficult or impossible to adjust satisfactorily. It would be a pity were this to be carried through into the next main iteration of AP. I tested this by setting up the same panorama sequence in both. The difference is significant.

THE REASON
This is due to historic use of the erase brush in other files as a normal erase brush being carried over into new files using 'overlay erase brush'. There is no way, when using the overlay brush tool, of accessing a brush dialogue, so this cannot be changed without closing a file. It took me some time to get to this. The overlay brush tool really should have an independent existence. These are RAW files; I don't use JPEG. Hope this is helpful MEB!
Michael

THE REASON
This is due to historic use of the erase brush in other files as a normal erase brush being carried over into new files using 'overlay erase brush'. There is no way, when using the overlay brush tool, of accessing a brush dialogue, so this cannot be changed without closing a file. It took me some time to get to this. The overlay brush tool really should have an independent existence. These are RAW files; I don't use JPEG. Hope this is helpful MEB!
Michael

Well, it seems I was wrong on one thing. The same result occurs with the overlay brush tool in the established version when used on a brush overlay. I attach another screenshot. In this the extent of a brush overlay is clear by the bright patch surrounding the figures. The brush overlay was used to delimit the figures to emphasise colour and increase exposure, which is obvious. So is the raindrop effect of the delete brush. I have selected the position of the screenshot to centre this so that it can't be missed. This only happens deleting a brush overlay, not with the gradient overlay tools. With gradient overlays the erase is smooth.
Perhaps there is someone who might be technically savvy enough to know why this occurs? The brush appears to be painting rather than erasing.

I am somewhat baffled by the comments. The overlay erase brush tool was being used to remove parts of the overlay I had been using on the figures. The spotty effect was the result. If this is done in the established version of AP it works perfectly. As an advanced user I am perfectly aware of how to use tools and what to expect from them and an appearance of raindrops from the overlay erase brush is not expected. Alain P your comment is arrogant. Think before you write.
It is also necessary to clarify my comment about other brush problems. This referred to posts by other people in this forum and not to my own observations.
This post was not submitted as a complaint. It was to show an event.