gdenby

Thanks. Its been about 10 years since I did coding (other than learning to write some regular expressions last year), and at least 20 since I did do a couple hours a week. So that knocked some cob-webs loose.

I've just started to use Photo regularly, and this procedural texture feature looks amazing. The help files show me a ton of stuff, and I don't quite know where to start. The help examples are good, but he help leaves me wondering. Has anyone out there done a tute, or a more extensive explanation? For instance, does "vec2(rx, ry)" accept values for rx and ry?

Or just use either a shape tool or pen form, set fill to none, stroke to whatever, and rasterize.

Hi again, ivanozzo, Glad its working for you. This topic has come up a few times. Your post got me going, and I've just blown several hours over the last few days doing the same on an imaginary place map. I can see why there are people who work on story book antique looking maps.

Pretty much exactly the same way. Start w. the shoreline line. Duplicate, and make the stroke bigger. Repeat as you like. Expand. Make fill none, and stroke minimal. Break the curves' end nodes, deleted the inland parts. Kinda tedious, but nothin' hard.

I have the Huion WH1409. I would not call it laggy, but until I messed w. the driver software, the pressure response was not to good. It tended to jump up and down between low and high pressure response. At this point, it is OK, but no where near the iPadPro and iPencil.

Hi, Royk, Here is what I can offer. I have an iPad pro. There are a few Affinity features not available on the iPad, but nothing that bothers me. The interface is quite different, so I sometimes have to thrash around to find out where some settings and commands are. I don't use the iPad much. With age, my hands and eyes are not working so well, and the touch/gesture based interface and the smallish screen are not very pleasant for doing work. The hardware does seem to me to be quite adequate for the job. But when I need gestural work, Affinity w. the iPencil is wonderful. Far nicer than the Huion tablet I use w. my iMac. One of my daughters uses a Surface Pro for her illustrations. She's tried the iPad w. iPencil, and says it is far more responsive. She does use Adobe products, but has mentioned the licensing is getting problematic, and is happy Affinity is available. She has tried the demo versions, and noted right away that Affinity had more blend modes. She has also said she may buy Affinity for her husband's mobile machine. I don't know what platform he is using, but he needs to do graphics for interactive educational apps.

Hi, Ed Keay, Just work at it. FWIW, as someone who handled impressionist paintings up close, the image manipulation apps started out as laughable, and have progressed to still giggle worthy. But a sample I came up w. after mucking about for 20 - 30 min. I've mostly use Designer, and have only spent some time practicing w. Photo over the last 6 weeks or so. A few weeks ago, there was a similar question about a "mezzotint" filter. I thought the example was not good, more like an aquatint. So, foolishly, started working towards a method to make something more like a mezzotint. I'm not ready yet to offer a tute, but here is an off shoot that might be called "tinted etching." Again. work at it. Buying off the shelf is convenient, and often entertaining. For myself, I prefer the obstacle course.

Here's where using a cheap or free vectorizer is usefull. The original illu run thru ImageVectorizer for Mac, cost $5. Untitled.eps

Hi, myrrhine, Your Affinity skills are coming along very well. While I had been using digital tools for quite some time, when I got the Affinity apps, I had not been in practice for several years. Took me months to regain the techniques you are showing. I can offer some comments based on my traditional training. The colors work well together. The bit of wallpaper decorative band is a nice subtle touch. Most of the delineation is good, but the face is incorrect. Whenever depicting human appearance, particularly the face and hands, everything needs to be very good. In your work, the ends of the mouth are not positioned below the irises of the eyes, which is where they need to be. Attached, a diagram suggesting where the side of the mouth should be. Alternatively, the shape of the face oval could be changed to indicate a large amount of fore shortening. 2 other things are quite problematic. The main figure has a thin dark outline. In shaded or colored works, this is considered a shortcoming. It does break the figure out from the back ground, but it negates the feeling of light flowing across the forms. It would not be too hard to duplicate the outline curve, and delete the portions where the light would be the brightest. No fill for that curve. The perspective made by the floor boards draws the eye into the illusionary space. Yet the window frame butts the top of the frame, and flattens out the top part of the image. No suggestion of an "above," or any recession into space. I suggest adding some space over the window, and maybe stretching the diaphanous drapes some to give a vertical push to the upper portion of the composition. The image is charming and pleasant, restful in feeling. Adding a bit more finesse would likely be worth the time.

You are welcome.

Hi, brucefrandsen, From my recollection of other apps, there isn't anything in the Affinity suite quite like "stroke selection." That is, repeat a bitmap along a "magic wand" selection. One may make a selection, create a border on it, and duplicate that. The new layer can have a fill placed in it. The Designer app allows "vector brushes" to be pulled along vectors, but those need to be made w. the pen or pencil tool. There isn't any built in auto-trace that will turn a bitmap boundary to a vector.

Yes, but it more or less doubles the shape creation. See attached. HiddenLines.afdesign

Hi again, Jakey80, Sorry for the slow follow-up. Wasted a bunch of time trying to make a quick animation, but that is something with which I have minimal skill. So, attached, a few screen caps. Select a portion. Copy and Paste. Stretch the copy. I used gaussian blur to reduce the noise. (I suspect at web resolution, the noise will not be noticed) Merge the visible layers.

Hi, Jakey80, Another way. Make a rectangular marquee enclosing the space under the legs. Copy that, and paste. Stretch the paster pixel rectangle from the visible bottom to the empty bottom. Merge down. Repeat for the upper section.

Good work. The image of the solo player has a lot of carefully co-ordinated colors and shapes. 2 comments meant entirely as constructive. the 1st, almost not worth mentioning, but the strings on the instrument seem oddly spaced. the gap between strings 2 & 3 is larger than the other 2 gaps. The thing that is problematic for me is that the dotted line from the laptop to the player's hand seems to be the same as the top line of the flip of hair at the front. That is a very nice touch, but the dotted line seems rather awkward. Not quite as flowing as it could be. Perhaps change the hair shape a bit so the dotted line which echoes it can be more geometrically simple.

The Affinity color picker will grab any color on screen. Just open a browser to the color.adobe web site, and use their online tool to pick the routine's colors. EDIT: btw, this topic reminded me of an extensive look into palettes found at the HandPrint Site. If you haven't read over the info, it is wonderfully detailed. It is aimed at watercolor use, but digs way down into the issue of color complementaries and contrasts.

1) Yes 2) Yes 3) The fx routines produce raster painting, which can be inserted into either .svg or .pdf. This is an issue that shows up often, because the fx may not scale smoothly enough. SVG files will handle gradients and transparencies, so some fx, like drop shadows, can be made entirely from code, w. no stored bitmaps. If no fx are used, the image should scale w/o problems. 4) I print very few things anymore. The issues mention here are the same as I've experienced for years. Files made in RGB don't translate well too the smaller gamut of CMYK inks, monitors must use calibration for approximate accuracy, so moving an image onto paper or fabric may not look quite right w/o tweaking. 5) I haven't worked w. Illustrator for 6 - 7 years. Perhaps someone who is using both AI and AD might comment on any issues moving files between the apps.

What I was trying to describe is that being a bit-map manipulator, APh does a screen rendering that shows as a bit map. AD, in "draw" personna" displays everything at top resolution, no matter what zoom level. Attached, 4 screen grabs. One of a pen drawn vertex at a 1000% zoom in Photo. The same file, at the same resolution in Designer. The third is in "outline" view, and shows a vertex getting an adjacent node .017 .pt above. A similar vertex, saved as .svg, and displayed in Chrome at 400%. This allows quite fine web displays magnification, well above what one might commonly do.

As v_kyr mentions, APh does simple vector work quite well. But AD has loads of features. Little things like the corner tool can come in extremely handy. The "vector brush" allows one to attach a brush stroke image to a vector, which can then be reshaped and colored as one might like. Symbols allow the construction of multiple items whose attributes can be changed simultaneously when a single one is modified. At present, fine detail drawing is easier in Designer than Photo. Photo, being at core a bit-map processor, rasterizes vectors as they are drawn, whereas Designer displays them cleanly at all levels of zoom. Etc. If you have the time, d-load the trial.

What version & platform are you using? My experience w. both the Mac 1.6.1 consumer and the 1.7.0.12 beta is that the default is a linear gradient, and that the gradient extends from the far left to the far right of the object bounding box.

Hi, LonnieK, You are progressing quickly, and well. The simulation of the optically broken straw is quite good. The only thing that doesn't convince me is the green stuff under the bun. Perhaps break it into three pieces, and rumple each one differently.

Hi, paul25c12, MattP's explanation from '15 is accurate. The SVG format supports gradients and transparencies that are scalable. Bit-maps can be included in the file, but will end up showing pixel artifacts. Some fx, such as shadows and simple specular highlights are easy to make using only gradients and transparencies. Fancier stuff like 3D can be lots of work. Sometimes, quick and dirty rasterization is the way to go.

Hi, TheDeliveryBoy, This sort of problem shows up often from people who have done traditional art, or those moving from "paint" like programs. I would suppose everyone doing art has some experience w. "coloring -books." B&W figures made of outlines that can be filled w. some sort of pigment. And, as one progresses, one starts drawing ones own outlines. So most everyone comes from a background where one makes an outline, and then fills it in. Vector work is sort of the opposite. One makes the filled area, and then can put an outline around it. To get the effect you want with the "W" in your example, use the pen or pencil tool, and draw the letter shape. Use the "fill" dialogue to give it a color. After you have made the filled shapes, you can then use the pen or pencil with a thick stroke to draw the outlines. Those shapes can then have pixels "paint" put in them. See my quick addition to you test. test2.afdesign

In the morning...