harrym

Hi it123
I think it might be better if you stack your layers the other way round. Start with b&w as your base layer at the bottom of the stack then make your first layer visible and paint out what you don't want on it's mask. Then make your second layer visible and paint out what you don't want on its mask revealing what you want to see below. Keep doing that as you work up the stack.
If you need a reference to the original layer as you edit it toggle the mask off and on.
Remember the beauty of AP is just how much you can do non destructively.
Anyway good luck with your light painting project!
 

Thx, John, I'm aware of that since I'm participating in the Beta for many years now
"Problem" is that WebP was (if I remember correctly) earlier announced as part of the 1.9 (Beta) but still is only available as import but no sign of export. If serif refuses to make any comments on future product enhancements the question might be better suited for the beta Forums. I just thought this might interest other useres as well that don't have acces to the beta forums.
Cheers, Timo

You could try
File - New Stack
Add images
Untick Automatically Aliign Images (although you may want to play with that setting)
Untick Live Alignment
In the layers panel ungroup the live stack group
 

My decades-old Ektachrome slides have this kind of color loss because the cyan dye fades. I've always corrected the worst of it using the scanner software's settings for color fading, correction, and restoration along with other tools in the scanner software. It may be easier using the scanner software than trying to use a photo editor after scanning.
For a fuller understanding of faded slides,  you may want to read Wayne Fulton's "A Few Scanning Tips" starting with
https://www.scantips.com/color.html
 

If you set the upper layer's blend mode to Multiply then you will get white only where both layers are white, and everywhere else will be black.

For those that keep talking about vector brushes, please create a new thread.  You are derailing this thread...

Great to hear everyone is getting a well deserved rest.
Hope you all have a relaxing safe holiday and good new year. 🥳

I had not heard the term "cinemagraph" before reading it here. So I looked it up. Turns out these partially animated stills are common in web advertising, so I guess I've seen them. Advertising doesn't really register on me very much. Cinemagraphs are seamless, continuously looping videos that use masks to isolate the portions of the image that will be animated from the portions that remain still.
For others new to the term, here are a couple of sites explaining and demonstrating cinemagraphs:
https://blog.flixel.com/what-is-a-cinemagraph-how-do-they-work/
https://www.tripwiremagazine.com/cinemagraphs/  (40 examples)
The company that shall not be named has brief instructions for making cinemagraphs at
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/video/discover/how-to-make-a-cinemagraph.html
For just $20 on sale at this moment, you can buy software dedicated to making cinemagraphs at
https://www.ashampoo.com/en/usd/lpa/partner6001?x-source=bingus&x-mid=bing&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=sem&utm_campaign=sem_bing&coupon=545-N7P-XHB&editionId=29878
or for $39 at this link
https://www.ashampoo.com/en/usd/lpa/partner6001
Interesting how that works. The file names on the downloads are different but the file sizes are the same. 
There are plenty of software products to try as indicated by the brief reviews at
https://fixthephoto.com/best-cinemagraph-software.html
Anyway, as a software junky I'm almost disappointed I cannot think of a reason I myself might want to make a cinemagraph, but they surely are very neat. 

I would support this (but not retreating to Photoshop).
 
John

It definitely has.  There is a reason that professional UIs are predominantly neutral gray: it reduces how much the color throws off your perception of the colors in the actual document.
Professional colorists working on video projects for major broadcast networks may need to work in rooms with walls that are painted using a very expensive pigment-free neutral gray paint so that the light (coming from carefully designed fixtures/bulbs) reflecting off those walls does not get tinted before hitting the display that they are using to judge their color choices.  While many of us won't be taking things to quite that extreme, having too much color in the surrounding UI is a rather obvious thing that can be avoided without significant cost in order to reduce bad influence on those decisions.  Shades of color/gray can also throw off your perception, so a relatively low contrast level is also desirable in a professional UI, at least to the point where it does not start to impact usability.

This method allows the complete display of long file names, if at all possible. Shortening tab to a certain length then in many cases unnecessarily truncates the long file name, which thus becomes unreadable.
Rather than "fixed" the width of tabs with unreadable file names, I would prefer to set the constant width according to the current length of the file name - not dividing the free space, as it is done now.
Even if the file is closed at the beginning of the list, do the tabs not change and move?

Jowday, it looks like a similar technical issue ... but we also should discuss your photopgraphy topics 🙂 (LMAO)

You are very much wrong. 
I understand you would like to see GPU support in the Windows products, so would I, but spamming, tagging, and calling me out on the forum are not the best methods for motivating people.

Good point, given the current cost the fact I don't use the develop module is really of no importance to me, my current workflow works. 

Why not make this a separate program with the StudioLink feature instead of cramming a DAM into Photo?  Last I checked Photoshop is not Lightroom and to me it sounds a bit absurd to increase the pricing of Photo by forcing it to become Lightroom as well, especially since I am not a photographer who would be the only ones that benefit from such a system.
By all means, Serif should make a DAM program eventually after they have developed their current three programs some more, but please don't cram all of these things into Photo and up the pricing.

Not a ramble! 
You and Jowday are spot on

Not a ramble! 
You and Jowday are spot on

The challenge is that some of us use C1P (me), others DxO, ON1, Luminar, Darktable, & Raw Therapy (and others).  I only consider LR and C1P to be tier one Raw Converters / Developers.
I switched to C1P (even though it is very expensive) because of it"s amazing Raw Converter and its speed (LR was just excruciatingly slow and the handwriting was on the the wall for the classic version).  Affinity Photo's Raw converter is not even in C1P's league and I completely agree it is maddening that they rolled their own Raw Converter, particularly given their lack of resources. Of course it might be no one would work with them.  Assume they were able to embed Capture One's converter, just imagine how integrated, powerful and fast an Affinity Photo / Capture One solution would be. (Pick one of the others and the same applies) 
I really hope there are some surprise announcements in version 2.x.
It is late and I am tired, sorry for the rambling...

Serif should have partnered with a RAW dep company from the very beginning when they made PhotoPlus. Instead they chose to use (especially in their case) precious resources to piece together and maintain their own RAW dev module that simply is awful - and doesn't render images as good as you would expect on Windows because of the open source components they use with no aesthetic tweaking. RAW development is simply specialist territory and if Serif wants to live up to the the term professional - not just use it for marketing - it is time to partner with a professional RAW dev company somehow.
For RAW shooters Photo would be a 10 times better deal with a competent RAW module from fx DxO - fx the cut down easy to use version from DxO used in DxO Film Pack. DxO was in financial trouble a few times so I can't imagine DxO not being interesting in opportunities for more attention.
Using a bad RAW developer to develop files from great cameras makes absolutely no sense.
To make it clear what I am talking about: every single RAW development program I tried from companies without own demosaic experts and algorithms is useless. No matter how many fancy modules they add to the software. Simply because the great programs with great demosaic algorithms are way, way, way better. And even they struggle to make results comparable with the out-of-camera JPGs because the manufacturers have even more knowledge about great demosaic algorithms.
So by all means, purchase a RAW developer. Slower workflow, much, much better results. 

This whole topic has been discussed since forever. I'm also in the camp of them partnering with a tier 1 raw dev company not necessarily because of dam but simply because the whole dev module is just badly conceived i gave up using it years ago, things haven't changed. The obvious and possibly  easiest choice would be dxo, both ux's are reasonably similar still no dam though. C1 is a superb product (with dam) but conceptually quite different in ux. Also very expensive if your a Canon shooter. Perhaps there might be enough in a deal to convince C1 to create a cut down cheaper version that is basically a plugin to AP and licenced to Affinity such that they are guaranteed income. I'd happily pay double what AP costs and have more upgrade costs to have that solution.

This whole topic has been discussed since forever. I'm also in the camp of them partnering with a tier 1 raw dev company not necessarily because of dam but simply because the whole dev module is just badly conceived i gave up using it years ago, things haven't changed. The obvious and possibly  easiest choice would be dxo, both ux's are reasonably similar still no dam though. C1 is a superb product (with dam) but conceptually quite different in ux. Also very expensive if your a Canon shooter. Perhaps there might be enough in a deal to convince C1 to create a cut down cheaper version that is basically a plugin to AP and licenced to Affinity such that they are guaranteed income. I'd happily pay double what AP costs and have more upgrade costs to have that solution.

For the photographers in the group it is getting cumbersome to work with tens of thousands (or in many cases, hundreds of thousands) of digital assets and flip back and forth between dissimilar editing systems...  Capture One Pro and Affinity Photo.
I would love to see the product roadmap and who Serif plans to partner with.  I hope it is not one of the 2nd tier Raw Developer companies.

Please add support for the X-rite color checker. This is a tool used by thousands and a feature that would surly entice others to use your product. As it stands now I know many photographers who are paying for Photoshop and Lightroom that will not switch solely do to the lack of support for color grading using these tools. Your product is even teamed with X-Rite to get a license to your software when one of there products is purchased. I made the switch to AP and loved your interface however I sadly cannot recommend others switch without support for such a basic feature.  

All depends on what your needs are
Capture ONe is a better RAW processing program than LR, ask anyone that is a pro and used both and they will tell you the same.  The teathered capture is also class leading.
The File management side of the program is debatable.  I prefer to work in sessions, so can't compare the idea of working with an insanely sized single catalog.
I'm not convinced on the whole "integrated" approach between LR and PS, it isn't that much different than what can be done with C1 and Affinity (or a few other DAM type of programs on the market) that allow you to open up a raw file.
There are even free options that are very capable.  DarkTable being one of them.  
Jumping ship from LR the only challenge there is deep legacy users that have a catalog and massive amounts of Presets adn settings that won't translate.  Anyone jumping in from new, I don't see the point of using LR if you don't want to.   
That said, Capture One is not a cost effective alternative (unless you only use one single camera brand and one of these Sony, Nikon, Fuji, or PhaseOne).  If you use a cross section of brands....the $300 entry point and annual updates that are in the $150 range puts it at the top of the market...which performace wise, it certainly is.  

So to play devils advocate for a mo, I don't think they should develop a DAM but partner with DxO or C1 for close integration. The develop persona, being kind, is very weak and for me goes hand in hand with DAM. Affinity Devs strengths seem to me to be on the artistic side which is really fantastic and long may it stay that way!