dmstraker

It would be neat to have a Wiki for Affinity products. Start it off using current Help system, then let users extend it. As with Wikipedia, encourage a community of experts to sustain it

Don't know if it is the right place, but I posted a note about money as below. It seems an important topic, so I've dropped a link in here, if that's ok.

Using the Blur Brush, the preview under the cursor is the checkerboard when Transparent Background and white otherwise. Should this not show the proposed blur?

Dear Serif I first bought Affinity Photo as version 1.5 in 2017. I can't remember how much money I gave you, but it didn't seem much. I'd been using Photoshop (hereinafter called 'the former product') but then Adobe introduced a taxation system (ach, ptui!) so I started looking around and found you. James Ritson's 200-odd videos got me to a new level and I was off to the races. It's probably a common story. Since then, you've made all kinds of improvements to the product, often through listening to the requests of bods like me wittering on in the (very fine) forum. As a keen photographer and old techie, APh is now a permanent partner in my artistic endeavours. But I'm worried. I want and need you folks to both survive and thrive. I started my InAffinity channel on YouTube as much to spread the word as to learn and build a beer fund. Other good people have done likewise. But I don't know if this is enough. During expansion, when Serif products are finding new customers, market penetration pricing can work to keep you going. However, a time comes when you may need to rethink your price policy. I'm not suggesting going to an Adobe model, nor the Luminar smoke and mirrors. In fact I'm not suggesting any magic formula, because magic is an illusion that can get you into trouble. But I am asking and hoping that you have a financing strategy that your customers will buy and which keeps you at the leading edge for the forseeable future and beyond. And I, for one, would be ok with paying a bit more. Yours sincerely Dave

Just a note: I went to stokpic.com and a friendly little popup-looking thing offered to do a free virus scan for me. How nice. How worrisome. I clicked away.

Are you able to share why?

Shame about the Unsplash removal, but I totally understand why. It makes you wonder if Pexels and Pixabay might do the same. There's also a possibility for M&A in the photo sharing world. A thought. Unsplash wants donations of photos from photographers (as do Pexels and Pixabay). What if there was a way for Affinity users to easily submit images to them? If their API could handle it, then good. But if not, perhaps even a link would help. Or maybe Serif could even pre-emptively build value (including for Affinity users) with some half-way interface. This could be a significant lever in negotiations. Regarding this, I notice through my InAffinity channel that many of my users are older. Like me, there's a pattern of folks retiring and getting deeper into photography (just look at the demographic of the average photographic club). This might indicate a greater average willingness to freely share images and less need to make money, as these are retirees who have made their mark and hav sufficient pension at least to indulge in camera kit. This would be a splendid source for the photo sharing sites, and making it seamlessly easier to contribute would be of great value to them.

The Bilateral blur has a bug whereby when the tolerance is set to zero, the whole image disappears (becomes transparent). This looks something like a divide-by-zero issue. This bug has now been transferred to 1.10 Frequency Separation in the Bilateral tolerance slider. Also, using straight Bilateral blur lets me knock out fine detail such as jpg artefacts, while the Bilateral in the Frequency Separation seems much weaker in this.

Small celebration. I've just passed the 700th video in my InAffinity YouTube channel. There's also a web-based index, including videos sorted by time and category, plus free resources. I'd also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Serif and all of its people, including devs, QA, and everyone else. You folks have created an amazing product that has freed many of us from the Adobe taxation system and indeed that stands on its own as an excellent photo editing and graphics system. Having worked in software development, quality, marketing and other areas, I have some inkling of the effort and sheer dedication that it takes. Thank you and well done.

See also other report I've recently added -- also still happening in latest beta.

Note: I tried it with latest beta 1.10.0.1127 and it's still happening.

I tried it with 1.10.0.1127 and it's still happening.

Create document with Document/Transparent Background set, and a layer with black and white. Set Blend Ranges, adjust left graph so you can see transparent background checkerboard. Add Gaussian Blur as child layer. Adjust radius. The moment radius goes off zero, the transparent background goes white. This effect does not happen when blur layer is above pixel layer. Example file attached. blend ranges and blur.afphoto

Don't know if this is a bug, but it does seem odd. See attached file. Different effect of gaussian blur when at clipping child position vs. at mask child position. At clipping position it gives dark effect at edges of hard alpha (including with Preserve Alpha) while at mask position it's more as expected (and same as when blur layer is above pixel layer). blur on alpha.afphoto

I did a video on erase masking here: