StefanK

I was very interested in this now. Yes, it doesn't really seem like abnormal behavior. Photoshop has the same effect. 🥴 I had already forgotten that. 😇 Ok, it's annoying though. But I can live with it. There are worse things. Incidentally, the undesirable effect only occurs when the source brush slides over the area that has just been cloned. Probably some internal graphics memory thing or something. This didn't happen with my first graphics program, Micrografx Picture Publisher. But Corel bought it and has improved that to death. But now we finally have Affinity Photo. 🤩

No. Here is another example. There is only one layer. Nothing else. It's a simple jpeg image. The clone source is the current layer (in the second attempt). And in this video current layer & below. Now tell me this behavior is normal. For me it isn't. And it's really annoying when you have to constantly interrupt. 20240128_202555.mp4 That doesn't get us anywhere. Because there is only one layer here. One.

Can anyone confirm this behavior when cloning? Also an annoying thing for me. Cloning overwrites pixels. But as you move the brush further, the pixels reappear even though they were just overwritten. 20240128_150520.mp4

BTW. And this is what it looks like at the moment. The larger the source brush, the less clear its boundaries are. How can you move the source brush along the contours of a source if you cannot see the contours of the source brush?

No, that's not the point. I simply want 100%+ WYSIWYG. That's all.

Yes. I see it. But only in the preview. It is not visible during cloning. But that is secondary. I would like to lead the source accurate. Then I'm also sure that exactly what I see at the source will appear at the clone.

Yes, of course that is the case. Only you can't see the size of the source brush. Because only the center cross is visible. The actual - but invisible - size is significantly larger than the cross. I don't feel like using the undo brush all the time. Because there was always something more copied than I wanted. 😇 Yes, that's the problem. It can only be seen in the preview. And during cloning I cannot observe (invisible) source limit and result at the same time. My intention would then look like this. So quite simple

My problem relates to the fact that I don't have any real control over the coverage limit of the source brush. I found this very pleasant in another program. When cloning, I was then able to move the detection source boundary very precisely along the contour of my desire. Because the coverage limit was specified exactly by the source brush. At the moment I only see the center of the invisible coverage limit - without external borders. Ok, this isn't a drama. But it might just be more pleasant to use. But if you can easily change that, why not?

I'm still a little unhappy with the clone brush. Aligning the brush with the outline of the source is not possible because the source brush is just a cross. But the detection range is much larger. Isn't it possible to make the source brush look the same as the clone brush? So two identical brushes?

I feel the same way.

There is nothing to be followed. It is written there the same and without answer.

It is not possible to set up a menu for the mouse with the purpose of creating a layer from a mask? That would significantly improve the workflow. CTRL-J requires you to release the mouse each time. It's annoying. (under the topic "Desktop Support & Questions " that was probably a bit wrong, therefore again)

The overall image sharpness should not be lost. That is the point.

So this function is not included. OK. 🤔

No, no halo please. That is known. The edges of the object should be run out transparent, from the inside to the outside.