user_0815

Also an active soft-proof layer causes test to be rastered.

With the HSL adjustment you can't define a specific RGB colour as a target colour. You'll have to either eyeball it or place an info point which shows you the resulting colour at that spot. (See the info panel.) If you want a precise colour as a result, I would create a fill layer set to Colour and add a Colur Range Mask to it which works like the HSL tool. The mask defines which colour will be affected. The Fill layer is the colur which will replace the original one.

My initial thought was also towards Layer States. Afaik you can save queries to select certain objects, which means you can define groups in this sense. Not sure whether it is available in Designer though.

I chose to believe that they are busy at work trying to improve things that people have complained about in the past years. A merger is not an easy process and grabs lots of manpower. In such a time the staff is simply not able to work in their usual routine. Many things are being re-ordered. Including marketing. I have experienced that first hand more than once. If they come up with the next version or anything new, great. That's the most likely scenario imho. If they actually did stop their service, I can still worry later but not now. Unfortunately we simply don't know. Keep calm and carry on. That's my personal opinion.

Perhaps the color-range mask would do that? Not sure whether that was available at that time.

I'd totally support that feature request for optionally hiding the bounding box / edges or whatever that's called. Imho it's not a technical thing but a usability improvement. Sometimes I don't mind, but often times I find those boxes distracting from my work and I keep clicking or pressing space to hide them temporarily. Yes, technically you can call it objects and so on... But in my actual workflow it would really help reduce distraction hence make working easier, better and more enjoyable. These kind of features create great user experience and usability. Just my opinion.

This is how I move just the selecton without the pixels. selection.mp4

I've experimented a lot with this kind of stuff and there is a fine line between realistic and the feeling that something is off. There are many things to consider if you want it to make it look real. Not only the wrapping around the object it self but also perspective, tilt, lens distortion and lighting. For example, just the wrapping around a cylinder is quite a challenge. When I tried it, it never looked quite right. So I took a piece of paper with some lines on it and took a photo. Then I tried to recreate it in Affinty Photo which led me to the conclusion that I need to adjust the handles in the Mesh Warp tool to squish the outer sides which requres a middle anchor point. And this was just square on the front perspective. In your case we have a top down perspective, a wide angle lens and a slight tilt to deal with as well. From the glass bottle there are no reference points to place the lable so that it would be "level" on the bottle and in the correct perspective. This makes it really hard and almost impossible to get it right with eyeballing. My suggestion is, if you can re-shoot the bottle, take two pictures. One blank where you will later place the mockup lable. The second one should be the exact same but with a paper on it where the lable should be. Ideally this paper would have lines or a square pattern for reference. Or just a blank label. With that, you then know how the edges of the label should bend and converge. Of course, later add the exposure and contrast adjustments to darke the sides etc... label.mp4

Maybe you can substract the oversize from the bleed... I had 0.03mm too much in the vertical dimension. 55.03 mm insead of 55 mm. So I set the bleed from 3mm down to 2.985 mm (3 minus 0.015 mm). The export now shows exact 55mm. My print shop accepts oversize because he requires a "minium" bleed instead of an "exact" bleed. So I can't verify whether this workaround actually works in practice for those who need the exact dimensions.

Moving the selection with the selection tool only moves the selection. You'll have to switch to the move tool in order to move pixels – or alternatively hold cmd (ctrl) and click-drag as a shortcut.

When I make a selection from a path, usually I duplicate (cmd-J) the path before clicking the Selection button. Just to have a backup in case I want to change it later. More often I use the path as a mask by clicking on the Mask button in the context tool bar. As you know, this preserves the path and can be re-used as needed.

Right-click "Rasterise" before hitting the delete key. You can change settings so that Photo does that automatically just like you are used to it. To do that, click on the assistant icon (the bot in the tool bar). There you can adjust some default behaviour. Also "Delete selections from Image/Raw layers". Set it to Rasterise and delete. Alternatively to "Add mask" if you prefer to not rasterise. When you hit the delete key, Photo will add a mask according to your selection. Image layers are such where you place or drag images into a document. It retains all original data of that image like colour space, dpi and it's original size. Rasterising strips that info and integrates that image into the document colour space (if it was different).

Oh totally forgot: macOS Sequoia MacBook Pro M1 + external display and external Apple Keyboard.

When editing a text in Publisher, pressing cmd+Enter commits that text and switches from the text tool to the move tool. This does not work when using the second enter key on a keyboard with number pads (the one on the far right). I think the second enter key should be working as well.

Usually my files are around 1.5 to 3 GB but haven’t had any serious issues like this (except a performance issue related to the Info Panel). The selection brush works as expected for me. MBP 15“ M1 Max 64GB. No clue what that could be caused by. Wild guess: try a different keyboard.