kaffeeundsalz

Hi @darinb, I work in magazine publishing where we do that RGB to CMYK conversion all the time. From what I read in your post, you want your photos on paper to appear as close as possible to your originals on screen. Whether this can be done to your satisfaction depends on a number of factors, one of them being the colors used in your photos. In addition to what @stokerg suggested, you may want to consider the following: CMYK color spaces are smaller than RGB color spaces. This means that some RGB colors cannot be accurately represented in CMYK. Blue and bright green colors with high saturation will cause trouble. This is a technical limitation that you cannot circumvent. It also means that it's not really prossible to automate the conversion process, at least if you have many different images. You'll want to carefully compare the color appearance for each image and tweak it as needed. Take a break after long sessions and also check your work again the next day. The conversion process itself will only give you limited control over the resulting colors, but you can experiment with different soft proofing settings in Affinity Photo or further edit your CMYK images after the conversion to get closer to the look you want. Provided that color management is set up correctly, computer monitors are capable of accurately rendering the colors as they will appear in your print product. However, the actual look and feel of your photos on paper will still be different because paper is not screen. Carefully select a suitable paper grade and, by all means, make a prepress proof. Instead of just soft-proofing the pages, you'll want to do actual ink-on-paper-proofing. Kind regards kaffeeundsalz

GabrielM already told you in this post that there are no plans for a Linux version. Apart from that, you could have easily joined this thread and wade through 33 pages of forum discussion about this matter. All the linux talk is happening there. There's no need to start a new thread.

For what it's worth, I haven't found any file format particularly useful for preserving text editability – except the native format of the application I was working in. Even the PDF format was originally developed for layout accuracy and not for keeping text editable, although I know there have been attempts to add this on with certain export settings. But even with these, the result was not at all convincing, neither with Adobe apps nor with any other software that supports PDF export, at least from my personal experience. You just never know in what logical blocks PDF splits up your layout, so you may end up with associated text put into separate text frames every so often. I've given up on this. If you want to preserve editability, save in native file format. I know this causes problems when you try to interchange designs with clients.

The Patch Tool is not suitable for what you are trying to do. Patching blends the pixels of the source area with those of your target sample, so the blur you're experiencing is kind of expected. This means that the Patch Tool works perfectly in the examples you provided. It's just that it can't do what you want. For example, to remove the hand from your second image, a much better approch would be using the Inpainting and Clone Brush Tool in conjunction. Patching might work with your first image as @AffinityJules has demonstrated, but you need to make sure that you don't select parts of the eyeglass frame. Also, as others have pointed out, you may be better off using other techniques for removing the reflection.

Hi everyone, I just discovered this when playing around with the Affinity Photo Beta. Here's what I do: 1. Make sure Metal is enabled in the preferences. 2. Open an image. 3. Add a HSL Shift Adjustment layer. 4. Change the blend mode of the adjustment layer to something other than 'Normal'. Expected result: The appearance of the image should change as different blend modes are applied. Actual result: The appearance of the image remains the same no matter which blend mode is applied. Is anyone else seeing this? Happens to me with Affinity Photo Beta 1.7.0.116 on macOS 10.14.4 Mojave. Disabling Metal fixes the issue. Best regards kaffeeundsalz

Well, now that you say it: Never have I seen you and @R C-R together at the very same place and time … Thank you for pointing this out. I use masking and clipping every day and have talked myself into beliving that I completely understand the difference between the two. But the whole subject is so confusing that sometimes I'd like to get reassured that I don't miss anything.

@R C-R Would you say that there's a particular advantage in either masking or clipping in this case?

@carl123 ist right. Marriages entered solely for the purpose of software license sharing are statistically terminated after rather short periods of time.

@LondonSquirrel thinks it would be an easy job.

Then the right thing to do for the OP would be to create a new topic with that feature request in the appropriate forum (I didn't check whether such a topic already exists in this case). I'll never understand why people would instead throw their hands up in disbelief about why the feature isn't there, make the same points over and over again and finally rant about the software and/or the developers because what the hell could be so hard and I won't respond any more. If that particular feature is really such a dealbreaker, why don't they just use another application that can do what they so desperately need? What you may not know is that Serif started from scratch with the Affinity line so there might be no line of code that they borrowed from the legacy product range. You don't have any insights into the development process, neither do I, so we just can't estimate the difficulty of any particular implementation. Also, have you considered that what you want is maybe not so hard to do, but just low on the developers' priority list? Because maybe this feature is really not so important for the rest of the user base? That is your opinion about what toolbars are designed for. I can think of many other definitions that don't involve the level of customisation you suggest.

Provided that the design you created is actually made of vectors (which is not obvious from the screenshot you provided): Could it be that you have accidentally activated the pixel preview in Affinity Designer? Because, as @>|< pointed out, Affinity Photo will always show vectors as pixels, the exact view depending on the current document settings. If your design won't export as vectors, maybe you have an effect applied to your objects that causes them to be rasterised on export? Also, you might want to check your export settings since there's also an option to rasterise everything there.

You could also set the opacity of all child layers to 0%. If you then lower the opacity of the group, you can achieve even less than 0% opacity, which is a paradox and will destroy the universe.

At 0:24, what's the purpose of duplicating the background layer?

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.

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?