John Rostron

See this thread. John

It looks very much like a foible of Facebook/Messanger rather than Affinity All I can suggest is that you set up your default File > New properties to have 72 dpi. John

Most of the Nik plugins work very well with Affinity Photo. The two that do not are the HDR (which will only work with one image) and the Perspective plugin. Both of these work OK as standalones. John

if you round (say) 5.25 to one decimal place, should it round to 5.2 or 5.3? Both are equally valid. Many rounding algorithms will round up for an even integer part (such as 100) and will round down for an odd integer part (such as 5). John

Nik plugins, like almost all .8bf plugins, will only work on one image at a time. The Nik HDR plugin will only accept one image in AP (although it will accept multiple images as a standalone). Why should you want to open multiple images in a plugin? My guess is that this is true for .8bf plugins in other software. I used to have Photoshop with the Nik Google plugins and the HDR pluging worked, but this was through Automation rather than the usual plugin interface. AP does not support any other kind of plugin other than .8bf. John

Yes they do, but the screenshots taken of these were then posted on the thread at a reduced scale making it more difficult for the visually challenged, like me, to discern the detail and especially compare images. I did it by downloading etc, but these are extra hoops. Note, I use visually challenged, not in any PC sense, but to indicate that I am obviously not spotting things that others are doing. John

I append here the three images cropped and displayed at 100% of the original images. I can see, as I wrote earlier, that the AP 1.8 shows the banding and the other two do not (although the 1.9 image hints at it). Ideally I would have been starting with either a 100% zoom screenshot or the original image. AP1.8: AP 1.9 Lightroom JOhn

I was making my judgement based on what could see in the forum display. I have looked there again and and I still could not see any differences. I downloaded the three images and loaded them into an aligned stack (ungrouped) so that I could flick from one image to another at near 100% zoom. Under these circumstances, I could readily see that there was more banding on the AP1.8 image compared with the others. Which reinforces my point that the OP should have posted images captured at 100%. This applies here and perhaps to other threads where I have made a similar comment about not being able to discern differences. I will concede that perspicacity (a clarity of vision or intellect ) was not quite the right word. Although it can mean clarity of vision, it is mainly used in the metaphorical sense of clarity of intellect. Pax! John

Note that I said: "to me, these images all look the same". I had my eyes tested on Monday. You must have exceptional perspicacity. John

@spacecat It might help if you explained what your image was. Is what you show before or after FS? Or both? Your Layers panel does not help. Can I suggest at you provide screen captures of both your before and after images, and explain what the Layer panel shows. John

@HANDJOJO to me, these images all look the same. For a valid comparison, you need to capture and display all three images at 100%. This will probably mean cropping the display images to around 800px. John

For an existing (target) document, our can use Document > Resize document and change the dpi leaving the Resample box unticked. When creating a new document, you can specify the dpi at this stage. John

@The Belgian, welcome to the forums. When you say "paste from clipboard", what are you pasting into? The default dpi for a new document is 96dpi, so this may explain your problem. You will need to set the dpi of your target document to 300. John

If you use resize to simply change the dpi from 72 to 300 without Resampling, then the pixel dimensions are unchanged but the physical dimensions will be reduced. It will not affect any pixillation when viewed at 100%. John

As the Irishman said when asked the way to Dublin: "Well, if I were you, I wouldn't start from here." The obvious modification of my equations is to apply similar transformations to both the x and y axes. This will not work. The result is still a square. You would need to apply some form of radial transform. Since the spherical transforms suggested here seem to do the trick, I would not recommend equations. John