kaffeeundsalz

But you can. Just define the color of the Fill Layer as you like, which can of course be done using RGB or HSL values with the Context Toolbar or the Color Panel. Then play around with the Blend Mode of the Fill Layer. Especially try "Color" here. If you want to limit the effect to a specific area of the image, use a Mask. A different approach would be to use the Paint Brush Tool for this. Select the Paint Brush Tool, set its color to your needs, create a new Pixel Layer, set its Blend Mode to Color and then paint on the new Pixel Layer over the area that you want to recolor. Again, you can play around with the other Blend Modes if you want a slightly different effect. If the effect is too strong, lower the opacity of the Pixel Layer. If you don't want to use a separate Pixel Layer for your brush, you can also directly paint on the original image layer. In order for this to work, you need to change the Blend Mode of the Paint Brush Tool itself, which can be done in the Context Toolbar. The disadvantage of this approach is that it's a destructive one, meaning that you can't change the way your brush blends with the image afterwards. For recoloring, there's also the Recolor Adjustment. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow for specific RGB or HSL values.

You can try this yourself. In the Resize Document dialog, make sure the padlock is closed and change one of the two size values. Then hit tab or click inside another field. You will see the other size value change automatically because the closed padlock ensures that the aspect ratio of the document is maintained. If you open the padlock and try it again, the other size value remains the same because the opened padlock allows for dimensions independent from the document's original aspect ratio.

True. And he could have also replaced the three panels at the top right with the transform panel. That said, it's still a close match of Photoshop's UI, and as we've learned, it's intentional. Sorry for my exaggeration. You probably don't, and your strategy is totally reasonable. What I mean is that in some cases, developers might have designed the default UI of their applications with specific reasons in mind. The export options that @R C-R mentions can be an example for this. You don't have quick access to the Export Persona because you've hidden the main toolbar (where there's a button for it). I don't know the Windows version of Affinity Photo, but I suspect there's a menu item for it, and that may be quick enough for you. I'm just saying that switching between different personas is one of the main UI principles of the Affinity product line, so it should be clear why the default window layout of Photo features the Persona button bar quite prominently.

Looking at your screenshot, it seems to me that you've gone through all possible means to make Affinity Photo and Adobe Photoshop look as similar as they can. Even the toolbars have been customised to perfectly match the tools and their order. While this is fun to see how close you can get, it's of course a bit unfair because you're sacrificing the possible strengths of at least one application's user interface. There are of course many similarities in the feature set, but that's because those features implement basic and universal concepts that have evolved over time in image editing. And not even in digital image editing because stuff like masking, dodging, burning etc. has all been there in the world of analog photography, too.

@dkaiser Ich antworte Dir ausnahmsweise auf Deutsch und habe sehr genau verstanden, worum es geht, aber Leute wie Dich kenne ich ganz genau: Du meinst, Du weißt alles besser und hältst Deine Perspektive für die einzig wahre. Und wenn dann jemand anderer Meinung ist als Du, dann hat der eben nicht verstanden, worum es geht. Was Du dir nicht vorstellen kannst, ist, dass es Menschen gibt, die komplett anders arbeiten als Du und damit trotzdem sehr glücklich sind. Die es schätzen, dass sie unterwegs an einer Design-Idee arbeiten können und sich trotzdem nicht überarbeitet oder ihrer Freizeit beraubt fühlen. Du glaubst, nur weil Du mit Affinity Designer for iPad nichts anfangen kannst, können es alle anderen auch nicht. Um Deine Fragen zu beantworten: Ja, offenbar glaubt Serif wirklich, dass es da draußen genug Menschen gibt, die mit ihrem iPad genau so arbeiten wollen, wie Du es kritisierst. Sonst hätten Serif nicht tausende Stunden an Entwicklungsarbeit da reingesteckt. Lass das doch also bitte einfach den Markt entscheiden, ob die Welt eine iPad-Version von Designer braucht oder nicht. Und da wir schon dabei sind: Wenn die Affinity-Reihe Dir nicht die Funktionen bietet, die Du für essenziell hältst – dann benutze doch bitte einfach andere Software. Es zwingt Dich ja niemand, Affinity zu verwenden. Falls ich mich übrigens bis hierhin noch nicht klar genug ausgedrückt haben sollte: Wenn Du für dich einen Workflow gefunden hast, der funktioniert, freut mich das. Das Problem ist: Du meinst, diesen Workflow allen anderen aufdrängen zu müssen. Du glaubst zu wissen, dass Dein Weg der einzig wahre für alle ist, und dass alle anderen das nur noch nicht begriffen haben. Und Du untermauerst das mit Deiner ach so langen Berufserfahrung. Menschen, die genau so viel Berufserfahrung haben und das aber alles komplett anders sehen als Du, existieren in Deiner Vorstellung nicht. Was Du jedenfalls in 25+ Jahren offenbar nicht gelernt hast: die englische Sprache und dass es nicht zielführend ist, sich auf Deutsch über ein Thema auszukotzen in einem Forum, in dem zu 95 Prozent auf Englisch diskutiert wird; wie man eine Forumsdiskussion so benennt, dass ein aussagekräftiger und verständlicher Titel bei herauskommt und nicht irgendein polemischer Blödsinn; Diskussionen zeitnah weiterzuführen – meine Antwort auf Deinen Beitrag ist über einen Monat (!) her; dass jeder seine eigene Art zu arbeiten hat, die dann aber trotzdem nicht weniger professionell, erfolgreich, erfüllend etc. sein muss als Deine. Der letzte Punkt ist der entscheidende: Deine Überheblichkeit hilft in diesem Forum schlicht niemanden, weil es voller Beispiele ist dafür, wie Kreative jeden Tag professionelle, aufwendige und fantastische Arbeiten abliefern – obwohl das Deiner Logik nach ja mit dem gegenwärtigen Entwicklungsstand gar nicht möglich sein dürfte. Was den Rest Deines Beitrags angeht: Ich könnte dasselbe über Deinen Workflow sagen, den Du hier allen als den Königsweg verkaufen willst. Für Dich mag das so sein. Es gibt Menschen, die auch auf einem kleineren Display sehr gut arbeiten können. Und die Arbeit mit Affinity for iPad ist jedenfalls nahtloser als alles, was es bisher in dieser Richtung gab. Kannst Du dir nicht vorstellen, weiß ich, aber das hatten wir ja schon. Selbstverständlich habe ich das. Ich habe ja schließlich genau so lange gewartet. Zu mindestens der Hälfte der hier von Dir aufgezählten Mängel hat Serif bereits gesagt, dass sie spätestens mit Erscheinen der finalen Version von Affinity Publisher behoben sein werden. Was man natürlich nicht wissen kann, wenn man die Diskussionen im Beta-Forum nicht liest. Und die Bedeutung des Begriffs Beta ist Dir offenbar auch nicht geläufig.

Thank you @Chris_K, I wasn't aware of this. My installations of Photo and Designer are indeed the Mac App Store versions.

Just noticed what's probably a small design flaw with Affinity Publisher's application icon on macOS. If you compare the outline of all three Affinity applications, notice that those of Designer and Photo are of the exact same size where Publisher's outline is slightly larger. This can best be seen in a Finder window with all three applications in consecutive order and then doing a QuickLook on them. If you navigate through the items with the arrow keys, the difference in size becomes obvious. I'll refrain from posting a screencast or screenshot here, but if desired, I can supply them later.

To make for a more convincing blur effect, isolate the foreground by moving it to a separate layer. Then, on the original layer, inpaint the foreground part so it gets replaced by textures and/or objects from the background. It doesn't need to look realistic because you're going to blur it anyway. Finally, apply your gaussian blur filter only to the background layer. That way, you'll avoid blending pixel information from the foreground beyond its original contour.

What @αℓƒяє∂ describes is technically correct, but I'd like to add that some people would consider it pointless to buy a Mac and then use it with Windows. While it's totally okay to do this with software that you need on occasion and that you can't replace with an equivalent Mac alternative (which is what Boot Camp was made for), I'd say that using macOS as your primary operating system is an integral part of the overall Mac experience. It all depends on your very own use case, but on a Mac, I'd prefer the Mac version.

Will you please stop telling me how I'm supposed to do my creative work?

Hi everyone, in the Affinity Designer for iPad introduction video, there's a nice 3D text illustration that can be seen at 0:36. https://youtu.be/dirJy4suAbs?t=36s Can anyone point me to a reference about how this was created? It doesn't necessarily have to be a tutorial about this exact illustration. Any hint on how it's done would help. Cheers kaffeeundsalz

Don't give up too fast on the overexposed areas though. It's quite remarkable what the Shadow/Highlights filter can achieve when you play around with the settings a bit: As you can see, the highlights treatment also makes some JPEG compression artifacts quite noticeable, but maybe your original image has a better quality than the uploaded (and maybe additionally compressed by the forum software?) version. Bonus tip: Just in case you happen to have this as a RAW file, it would probably be even less of a problem since you could recover the highlights with actual sensor data in the Development Persona.

Hi @- S -, it's interesting for me to see how different our experiences are in this regard. I started using gaming mice for productive work many years ago and the Logitech MX518 is in fact the one that I've used for the longest time by far. I even grabbed a second one from remaining stock long after Logitech had discontinued it just so I could put it aside for when my first unit would break. I occasionally tried out newer mice in retail stores, but I was so familiar with the MX518's design that there were times when I thought I could never use any other model again, ever. After my second unit had its days and there wasn't any change to get another one, I bought a Logitech G403 Prodigy, and getting used to it really wasn't as painful as I originally suspected. What this tells us is that the choice for a computer mouse is probably an extremely personal one and it all depends on what works for you and what doesn't. In this context, I'd also like to cast my vote for Razer devices. You're right: Forcing the user into the cloud just for configuring a mouse is a terrible design choice. That being said, I'm currently with a Razer Mamba Tournament Edition and have only good things to say about it. Very well crafted, precise, highly configurable and just the perfect weight, size and shape for my hand. After the initial configuration, I've permanently put the Synapse software into offline mode so it won't annoy me any further.

And don't forget that all three apps will have a shared file format, so it'll remain possible to open the same Affinity document with Designer, Photo and Publisher. It would be very confusing if what's a canvas in designer would suddenly be called something else in Publisher, wouldn't it? As for terminology: Adobe InDesign uses the name "pasteboard" for the area outside of the active page area. I like the idea, but it's certainly a matter of taste.

I still feel greatly entertained. Gotta get some more popcorn though.

Maybe Serif should just give that guy a copy of their source code. Sounds like ready-to-run Linux versions of both Photo and Designer would just be a few easy compiling minutes away then! I literally can't wait!

Sure. Just go to Swatches and from the dropdown menu in the upper right corner of the panel, create a new palette. You basically have two options here: either choose "Add Document Palette", which will attach your color swatches to the currently active document. If you then open that document in your other Affinity app, the swatches will open with it. Or, for an even more global approach, choose "Add System Palette". This will allow you to create a system-wide set of swatches that are permanently accessible from both Affinity Photo and Designer. And since system palettes are also not document-based, you'll have them available in any file you create or open.

Just because something can be considered doesn't mean it's necessary. You might trick less experienced people to believe they have to know all of this stuff to master a simple white balance adjustment.

@owenr Certainly I did! I saw it, but you said "It is far from a perfect fix for this photo", so I thought you could provide one. I was just curious what the result would look like. But if you say you'd never be satisfied, I can understand that. Never mind then.

@R C-R, I think our opinions are closer to each other than you think, but it's amazing how you don't seem to understand what I'm saying over and over again. Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker? If so, my apologies for not being able to express myself clear enough. But maybe it's because you always quote just some of my lines, so I wonder if you actually read my entire post. Right. Unless you think that the uncorrected original example of this thread has proper white balance. But I already said this. In most cases, yes. It depends on the look you want to achieve. But I already said this. In a way, all of them are (except for the unedited original image because that one has a clearly visible orange shift). It depends on the reference point you pick for white balancing. But I already said this. That might be because the images need further editing. Why don't you go and edit that image so that you're satisfied with the result and post it here? True. But "neutral color" is clearly defined in image editing. In RGB, it's when all three parameters R, G and B have the same value. In HSL/HSV, it's when S is 0. That's what you're white balancing against. Does it correctly reproduce colors of real world lightning? No. Is the perception of real world lightning subjective? Yes. Are there cases when neutral color values are not desirable at all in an image? Yes. But I already said this.

I didn't say that it has nothing to do with perception. I said that the degree of detail of your scientific approach is completely unnecessary to get to an image that is properly white-balanced. That's because, to stick with my example, if you remember an object to be white, you can make it appear white in the photo, too. Whether it actually has a different color from a physical or perceptional or divine perspective is totally insignificant because you already are where you want to be with your image. Or, in other words: White balance is surprisingly not about finding some universal truth about how we are all expected to perceive color. That would be the same as starting a discussion about the essence of being with someone who just asked for your ID.

@R C-R, you're getting way too theoretical here. Nothing you say about perception and brains and whatever has anything to do with what people actually intend to achieve with a white balance tool. What they want is to remove a color cast from an image because color casts look ugly (most of the time, they do). There are well-defined workflows to get there. None of these rely on your overly-scientific considerations. In fact, how can any perception of color be objective since we're talking about perception? If that's what you want to discuss, you're entirely missing the point.

I know. But when you only use the graypoint picker, you get the same or at least a similar result. That would only be the case if color was the only reference you have, e.g. in an abstract painting or so. If you have a landscape or a room or whatever scenery, you can tell from the objects that you're seeing what could be a good reference for a neutral color, even more so when you shot the image yourself and definitely know that, for example, some furniture on the photo is actually white in reality. Of course, this won't give you the appearance under the original lightning conditions because the light itself could have a color cast, but I think I already mentioned this and it's not what you're usually after when using the white balance tool (and if so, you'd have to rely on your eyes even more).

I must say that I'd find this pretty straightforward: You define an area of the image that, from what your eyes can tell, should be of neutral gray appearance, and the tool adjusts the overall color appearance of the image to match this. Right now, the white balance adjustment can't do this, at least not completely automatically. Of course, the quality of the result greatly depends on the actual lightning conditions at the place and time of the shot and the amount of color cast that is present in the image. Having used Photoshop's white, black and gray point pickers for years (which work as @owenr suggested), I can tell from my experience that it sometimes results in a really unnatural color cast itself, but is often pretty satisfying. So, as is true for every feature of image editing applications, it won't replace the judgement of your eyes. It's also true that a color cast isn't always equally distributed across the entire image. You might have a light source somewhere in your shot that gives objects a yellow tint only in, say, the lower right corner of the image. In that case, a graypoint picker can only be the first step since you need proper masking techniques to limit the effect to the area of the image that benefits from it. But that's already the case with how Photo's white balance adjustment works right now.

To be honest, it would definitely save time if you didn't have to manually mess with the Tint slider after you've corrected the color temperature with the picker. So yes, +1 for this.