Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kaffeeundsalz

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    : Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

927 profile views
  1. At 0:24, what's the purpose of duplicating the background layer?
  2. kaffeeundsalz

    Another Size Topic

    Well, 5999x3999 pixels are 5999x3999 pixels. You are not reducing the size of the image at all, so why should the filesize be significantly smaller? As for DPI, it doesn't matter if you squeeze 72 or 300 of your pixels into one inch. They're still the exact same amount of pixels. DPI is just a logical value that is stored with the image and that's only important for printing, i.e. when you have to translate the pixel dimensions into actual units of length. As for your exported image being larger than the original, that's probably because you've used less compression when saving the image. But again, this step is useless since you didn't change anything in your actual image.
  3. I'd like to understand the issue here, but I'm afraid you've lost me: How exactly would you improve the gradient tool to make it more intuitive? What is not intuitive about @firstdefence's approach? What does "Affinity needs to have something a bit more basic" mean?
  4. kaffeeundsalz

    Affinity Photo Customer Beta (

    Thank you very, very much for this, Serif. Not only is this going to end an old discussion, it will also be actually useful in the real world to improve overall TIFF compatibility with other applications.
  5. kaffeeundsalz


    Ich kann in @Steps' Kommentar beim besten Willen keinerlei Arroganz und Überheblichkeit erkennen. Du kannst doch nicht einerseits Freundlichkeit und Kollegialität fordern und in derselben Antwort derart gegen einen anderen Forumnutzer schießen, der lediglich seine Verwunderung über Deine Frage geäußert hat. Die noch dazu unvollständige Informationen enthält. Hier wird jeder freundlich empfangen und findet Hilfe – sogar Nutzer von inzwischen nicht mehr weiterentwickelten Serif-Produkten. Das setzt aber sowohl einen gewissen Ton als auch eine Bereitschaft zur Mithilfe voraus. Beides sehe ich bei Dir eher nicht. Du bist auf keine einzige Frage eingegangen, die Dir hier gestellt wurde, und die zum Verständnis Deines Problems notwendig war. Stattdessen versäumst Du es nicht, uns Dein Alter zu nennen (was willst Du uns damit überhaupt mitteilen?) und andere Nutzer zu beschimpfen. Denk mal darüber nach.
  6. Hi @MEB, thank you for making this clear, so yes, this is what I had expected. "Raster brushes from Pixel Persona don't work with paths" – and that's really sad. Should I open a separate feature request thread for this? All the best kaffeeundsalz
  7. @toltec I do have Affinity Designer and that's what we used as the workaround I mentioned above. It's just that in comparison to vector brushes, there are far more raster brushes available, many of which would have better suited the effect that we wanted to achieve. And as far as I can see, even Affinity Designer can't stroke a raster brush along a path. Or can it?! P.S. Bratwurst it is! Enjoy your meal!
  8. Hi @MEB, is there any news on this? Has the "stroke path" feature been recognized as a feature request for Affinity Photo and/or Designer? I ask because while working on a project, I came across a task where this feature would have been very, very useful. We found our workarounds, but anyway, a status update on this would be really appreciated.
  9. kaffeeundsalz

    [APh] Perspective Live Filter + Layer Effects rendering bugs

    I know this is an old thread, but I'm picking this up to report that the combination of Layer Effects and the Perspective Live Filter still results in more or less unpredictable glitches. This happens on both the Mac and the Windows version, and the bugs are especially visible when the Live Perspective is a nested layer. And it happens in both the current stable version of Affinity Photo 1.6 and the latest Affinity Photo Beta 1.7. There are many ways to have the bugs show up. One of them goes like this: Create a new Text Layer, type in some letters, nest a Live Perspective Filter inside it, distort the perspective so that the layer contents go beyond the original bounding box and add some layer effects like Gaussian Blur or 3D. Note that these are indeed just rendering bugs because as soon as you rasterise the composition, everything looks right. It's just that it's impossible to use this non-destructively because the results aren't displayed correctly.
  10. kaffeeundsalz

    Crop tool: constrain to image by default

    @Polygonius My concern is not about destructive and non-destructive crop, and I don't understand what problem people have with the Rasterise feature if they really want to discard the cropped areas. So no need for action here from my point of view. This thread is about whether the crop tool should expand the canvas by default, which I think it shouldn't, but which it does in 1.7 beta if the crop ratio is smaller than the original image ratio.
  11. Hi everyone, I really like the new crop tool coming in version 1.7, but I have one usability issue when using crop ratios other than the original image ratio: Say I have a widescreen image of e.g. 16:9, I choose the crop tool and choose a custom ratio of 1:1. What happens is that the crop frame grows in size until the complete image is covered, creating big transparent areas on the top and bottom of the image. I manually have to size down the box until the transparent areas disappear. So my question is: Should it really the default behavior of Photo to introduce a border when changing the crop ratio? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually 'crop' an image by default (meaning: cutting away image information that doesn't fit into the frame of the current crop ratio)? I don't know if this has been discussed before, but it would make much more sense to me. Or is there a setting that I missed?
  12. This seems to be fixed since the previous beta, presumably because Serif "Fixed TIFF ZIP compression issues" as it says in the changelog. Just out of curiosity, @Patrick Connor: Do you mean disappointed in a way that you had hoped to fix compatibility issues with tiff export and accidentally created some new ones? If that is the case, wouldn't it be a good idea to reconsider giving us some more options in the TIFF export settings? Especially related to compression methods? I'm not saying that the export dialog should be as complicated as in Photoshop, but it seems to me that there are cases where you would need to tweak a specific setting currently not accessible in Affinity Photo to make exported TIFF files readable by other apps. I know that this has been discussed before, and sometimes extensively, but it seems to fit in here quite well.
  13. Hi @Fixx, thank you for pointing this out. I completely missed the "Affinity Designer" part in the thread title. In my post, I was referring to the Add Noise filter in Affinity Photo. There's no such filter in Affinity Designer. What the OP probably means is the color's noise property, but it might be a completely different story with this one since I can't say anything related to professional printing about it. Sorry for the confusion.
  14. Hi @dinosaura, we often use the Add Noise filter here in magazine publishing to give digital photos a more analog, grainy film look. Provided that you do offset printing with a standard 300 dpi, we had good results with a value of 9-11 percent for a very subtle noise effect. We'd then go as high as 25 percent for a more grainy look. Added noise is much more visible on large single-colored areas. This means that for images with very few details, we'd generally use lower values. Also note that the Add Noise filter doesn't have a grain size slider, which limits the types of effects that you can achieve. Hope this helps. All the best kaffeeundsalz
  15. I just noticed this when I tried to implement some of the new 1.7 features into our production workflow. I edited an image with the current Affinity Photo Beta and exported it as a TIFF file. For export options, I basically set the same parameters that I have a preset for in 1.6 (TIFF, CMYK 8-bit, Uncoated FOGRA29, Embed ICC profile, do not embed metadata). When I try to place this TIFF image in Adobe InDesign, I get an error message saying that the file is incompatible or damaged. However, TIFF images exported in Affinity Photo 1.6 with the very same export options are readable by InDesign. Is there something that has changed in TIFF export, or am I doing something wrong?