Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

R C-R

Members
  • Posts

    22,536
  • Joined

Everything posted by R C-R

  1. Try this: In AP add an HSL adjustment & turn up the saturation on the master all the way. This will intensify the color variations. Do you see anything that corresponds even vaguely to the colors you would expect the objects in the photo to have? I can only do that with the tiny jpeg you uploaded, but even at that low resolution there is evidence of two reddish orange spots on the edges that probably are from oils deposited on the print during handling. If you do this with the original high resolution scan you should see more clearly what does & does not correlate to any colors of the objects in the photo vs. handling, aging of the photo, etc. So yes, this is just guessing & nothing about it is exact, but that is the point. There is no way to extract accurate color information that wasn't recorded in the photo itself when it was taken. You might be able to reconstruct a vestigial amount of it if you have access to very detailed info about the camera, the lens, the film, & the lighting conditions, but that isn't likely & it is (as was mentioned earlier) an external reference, not anything you can get from the scan alone.
  2. It is mostly because the scanned photo itself is not totally free of coloration. This could be due to aging of the emulsion, oils or other contaminates introduced by handling, reactions with cleaning agents used to prepare the photo, & so on. It is also possible there was a small amount of contamination on the glass of the scanner, too little to see except maybe under a very bright light, or there was a small amount of fluctuation in the color temperature of the scanner's light source during the scan. Whatever the cause, the important thing here is the coloration has nothing to do with the colors of the photographed object. It is all from artifacts in the scanning process or the print being scanned. That's why for best results, when scanning a "black & white" (actually grayscale) photo, the scanner should be set to grayscale mode.
  3. The scanner used the RGB color space because it was set to use it. The scanner manual should explain the options but usually there is a B&W, a greyscale, & one or more color options. B&W is one bit, converting everything to either black or white, & produces a very small file. Greyscale ignores all colors & only stores intensity values, usually at 8 or more bits. Sometimes the options are named for the kind of document they are intended for, like text, OCR, photos, line art, or whatever.
  4. That image uses the RGB color space. Thus, it is not a grayscale image. Try this, the same image converted to a grayscale color space JPEG image: Or do the same thing in Affinity Photo, Photoshop, or any other app that supports changing the color space. EDIT: also note the dramatic reduction in file size.
  5. In the digital realm, grayscale images are defined as those having only one value per image pixel, which specifies its intensity (also known as brightness, grayness, luminosity or luma). They have no color channels, no color space from which color information can be extracted. Without some other external reference for this information, like a neural network AI that has analyzed thousands of color images & can recognize the similarities in the grayscale image to make an educated guess about what its colors should be, there is no way this would be possible. In short, you can't manufacture information out of nothing.
  6. I am saying that a layer is like a box. It can contain all kinds of objects, including other boxes. The objects in those boxes can be put into other containers inside the boxes to sort them into one or more groups, like you might find in an Ikea product box with bags for different kinds of hardware. The boxes & any containers in them can be stacked in different ways to make it easier to get to some of them. An object can consist of more than one part, so it would have to be separated or disassembled to work on or replace just one of them, just like a desk lamp or other things we usually consider to be one object. This is a very powerful concept. It allows you to treat a hierarchy of many different objects as if it was one object when that is convenient, & to do that in any part of the hierarchy, all the way down to the individual parts of a single object. It is also how we conceptualize real world objects. Things are always in other things: your car keys could be in your house, in any of several different rooms, in any of several different things in those rooms; or in another house or an office, or in your car, & so on. We routinely take them out of one thing & move them into another, traveling up & down the conceptual hierarchy of container "things," even though we rarely think about it such abstract terms. We literally have "always done it this way" for almost everything. There is nothing really weird about this in Affinity, other than it probably isn't how you have thought about it before now. If you do, things should start making a lot more sense. For example, moving something up or down depends on where it is in the layers container hierarchy. It will always step through the same level of the hierarchy, for example in its group or layer "parent" container, when you use the Order buttons in the toolbar or the keyboard shortcuts or the commands on the Layer menu item. But it won't move out of that level with those controls; for that you need to drag it up or down in the Layers panel. This makes it easy to work with very complex documents, ones with hundreds or even thousands of objects, without having to select every individual one of them you want to move, hide, change the attributes of, etc. That would be a painfully slow process totally unacceptable in an professional workflow.
  7. So basically you are saying that only unmodified attributes will remain synced, & that this applies to all instances of the same symbol? I think I understand what you mean but I will have to play around with this some more to see if I really get it.
  8. texobyte, Unless I'm missing something, snap is basically just a way to publish a "universal" Linux app package suitable for easy installation on different Linux distro's, right? If so, Affinity would still have to write the code using the appropriate Linux API's where needed, figure out how to preserve cross-platform document file compatibility, & so on. This is not a trivial task, nor does it seem likely it is one justifiable economically, even considering the total Linux user base, regardless of the distro they use.
  9. I don't know how much this will help, but I have an old version of Photoshop Elements on my Mac. The path to its plug-ins folder is /Applications/Adobe Photoshop Elements 9/Plug-Ins/ This is just like the path described in the the Photoshop troubleshooting web page -- it isn't in a Support Files subfolder like in Richard's screenshot; it is of the same Hard Drive/Applications/[Photoshop version]/Plug-ins form as for the non-Elements version.
  10. Staff member MEB mentioned something recently in another post that might make this seem less weird, at least conceptually: in Affinity a layer is just a container object, which can contain many different things, including a hierarchy of other layers, each potentially with its own groups, masks, clipping layers, etc. So when you click on a layer, you are actually selecting everything it contains, often including a great many 'things behind other things.' To drill all the way down to one thing, you can use the alt-click method or the Layers panel. Regarding the age thing, I am almost 70. I have been using vector apps for more decades than I can remember. (Sadly, that is literally true.) They all had a learning curve; every one of them seemed a little weird at first but not so much after I used them for a while. I think you will find Affinity is no different -- once you use it for a while, the weirdness will vanish ... mostly. :blink:
  11. Ben, It should be fairly easy to use the Selection Brush tool to create a selection that is only the white area surrounding the overlapping photos plus the drop shadow behind them (if the screenshot is accurate & there really is one & you want to remove that too). Just make sure you use a small enough radius to make it easy to avoid selecting any part of the photos, make sure "Snap to edges" is selected, & make sure you drag the tool slightly into the drop shadow area to include that. If you accidentally select part of the photos, use the alt/option key to subtract that from the selection. Once the white & (if present) drop shadow is selected, just tap the delete key. As long as "Transparent background" is selected in the Document menu, that will remove it. Then, if you want, you can crop the document to remove any excess transparent area.
  12. Richard, I understand your desire for this to work with as few configuration hassles as possible, but please keep in mind that the Nik Collection installer was written to automatically install the plug-ins only for two specific applications, Photoshop & Aperture, and the Aperture plugins use a different format that will not work with any other application. Affinity can't do anything about that, just like they cannot do anything about incompatible plug-ins without the cooperation of the developer of those plug-ins. Regarding your last question about finding the Plug-in Search Folders path to the Adobe Photoshop plug-ins folder, it is whatever folder you designated for plugins in Photoshop. If you did not change anything from the defaults, see this Photoshop plugins troubleshooting page for its location (which will vary slightly depending on the version of Photoshop installed). If you are still having problems finding it, you can do a Finder search for folders named "Google."
  13. Regarding your #5, if you select an item with the Move tool, it will move when you drag inside its bounding box. It seems to me that if it did anything else, that would be weird. :wacko: Regarding #6, I suspect your wobbly triangle is actually a "curves" or compound object, one in which the inner curve subtracts the fill from the outer one. So while it seems empty inside, it isn't really. If I'm right about that, if you double-click on it with the Move tool or select the Node tool & click on it, you should see two curve paths instead of one. Either way, to select an item under another one, try selecting it with the alt key held down. (I use a Mac so I'm not sure if the Alt key is the one for Windows, but it should be something similar.) For blurring things, have you tried using the Gaussian blur effect? It has a slider that controls the blur radius.
  14. Have you tried using the While Balance adjustment instead? Clicking anywhere on the image sets that pixel as the white point. You can also drag to sample all pixels under the cursor or alt-drag a selection marquee to sample all the pixels it contains.
  15. The reason for that is Aperture cannot use the Nik collection Photoshop plugins, so the Nik installer automatically installs a set of Aperture-compatible plugins in another location created specifically to support that app. (It seems to do this whether or Aperture is installed on a Mac, but that is not important here.) The installer also looks for a Photoshop plug-ins folder & if found will automatically install the Photoshop plugins there. (That's why MEB said this folder is the correct Plug-in Search Folders path if you already had the plugins installed for Photoshop.) The Nik installer also installs a set of stand-alone application files (they run without having to open a "host" app like Photoshop or Aperture) in the Applications folder at path /Applications/Nik Collection. Since they are not plug-ins, Affinity can't use them & if its search path preference is set to that folder, they won't work correctly (if at all) from the Filter menu. But believe it or not, it can get even more complicated than that. The Nik installer also gives you the option of installing the Photoshop plug-ins in a custom folder which will be named "Google," which would be necessary if you don't already have Photoshop installed on your Mac, or if for some reason you have installed that app's Photoshop plug-ins folder in some location the Nik installer can't find automatically. (See MEB's post here for more about all of this.) Even if you have Photoshop installed & the installer lists it in the Compatible Host Applications installer window, you can use the custom folder to install an additional set of the Photoshop plugins somewhere else, including in the /Applications/Nik Collection folder. If you do that, you can use /Applications/Nik Collection as the Plug-in Search Folders path in Affinity preferences. Most users would not do that (because the folder is quite large, about 700 MB) but it is useful if you have the disk space for it & you want to keep the plugin configuration files for PhotoShop & Affinity plug-ins separate. As I hope you can see from the above, the hassle factor of installing the Nik Collection correctly is the result of the Nik installer only automatically installing the plugins into the appropriate folders for Aperture & for apps that use the Photoshop plug-ins folder. It doesn't know anything about Affinity (or even which plugins are compatible with it) so, since Affinity users may or may not want to keep all the Photoshop plug-ins in the same place, there isn't much Affinity can do to "idiot-proof" the process.
  16. Sorry, I composed my reply before I saw the post with the screen shots. But this brings up something else a bit off-topic I hope you don't mind my mentioning here. I have a very fast ISP connection (300 Mb/s nominal, 130 to 350 Mb/s actual) & sometimes, sort of like for the attachments in this post, some of them load very quickly & others either glacially slowly or not at all. This seems to have little to do with file size, only with display (pixel dimension) size. Do you have any insights about why that is?
  17. Richard, Is it possible your JPEGs have multiple layers & you have selected one below another layer to apply Silver Effects to, & the layer(s) above it are preventing you from seeing the layer with the effect?
  18. I doubt this would have enough practical value to justify the development time it would require (which I think would be better spent on development of the newer version). For one thing, it is likely that ignoring new features will result in documents with missing content, so for example it would make it confusing to download & try to use a new format document for learning purposes with an older app version. Besides, once the new version leaves beta status & becomes the retail version, there is not much point in keeping the older version of the same app on your computer. Also, as it is, opening an old format document using a beta that would save it in the new format displays a warning about the incompatibility & gives you a choice of working on a copy, the original, or canceling. Assuming this feature is retained in the retail version, if for some reason you do want to keep the old app version on your computer, working on a copy lets you keep the two format versions separate.
  19. Where are you clicking on the logo? If you double click on a file saved in Affinity Photo format, what happens?
  20. Yes, it made perfect sense once I understood that the thumbnail is always square (& resizes to fit the available space in the panel?). I think this may also explain why sometimes a regular duplicated layer in the Layers panel sometimes has a smaller thumbnail than the original, something else I have wondered about for quite a while. Thanks!
  21. Lau, I have been doing some testing with Affinity Photo, exporting various sized image files as 16 bit TIFFs. From what I can tell, up to some size (file or image dimensions I'm not sure) Preview, Finder, QuickLook, all display them correctly. However above some size they display as either pure black, pure white, or black with horizontal noise bars. For example, I have a 56.2 MB, 4992 px × 4104 px tiff which displays all black, but if I resize it in AP to 3000 × 2466 & export it, I get a 18.2 MB 16 bit TIFF that displays normally. So while I am just guessing, I think this is a buffering issue or something similar in OS X 10.11.6 -- 16 bit TIFFs that don't overflow the buffer are fine; those that do are not.
  22. The Photoshop scratch disk is basically a kind of virtual memory the app uses for temporary storage of parts of open documents that would use too much real memory, leaving very little for other things. There is no equivalent in Affinity Photo because it seems to be a much more memory efficient app than Photoshop & works well with the builtin OS X virtual memory system. In other words, you don't need a scratch disk for AP, so they do not provide that feature.
  23. Wouldn't that just make all the objects 100% black instead of maintaining their luma (gray) levels?
  24. MEB: Thanks much for the detailed reply! It will take me a while to digest it all & do some more testing to see if what I thought might be bugs are just features that work as intended, & perhaps to add some info about how to get the behaviors you are not seeing to appear. However, there are a few things I want to mention now: Regarding rotating a symbol instance causing changes in the appearance of the symbol in the Symbols & Layers panels, it isn't just that they rotate, it is also that they change size (shrink or expand), even though they remain the same size in the document window. That behavior & perhaps a few of the others may be due to the app being in an unstable state prior to crashing (because of the renaming issue). I will try to see what is repeatable if I avoid doing any symbol renaming & report on that. Regarding renaming a symbol not updating the names of its instances in the Layers panel, I see what you mean about that probably being by design. Even so, it would be nice if any symbol layer instances that had not previously been manually renamed with something other than the original symbol name did update to inherit the symbol's new name, while those that had been renamed in the Layers panel did not. I hope what I mean by that makes sense. If not, I can try to describe it better.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.