dmstraker
-
Posts
825 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dmstraker
-
-
-
On 8/27/2021 at 10:42 PM, Alfred said:
... I don’t/won’t use Pexels.
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.
-
Just now, MEB said:
Hi @dmstraker,
Thanks. There's currently a few reports that may be related with this issue. Let me check their status. I will make sure this is logged in case it's a different issue.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.
-
9 hours ago, NotMyFault said:
I think this might be another symptom of the known bug handling alpha channel with nested layers targeting alpha channel. Did you try on latest beta?
Currently traveling with iPad only, there (1.9.2) i cannot reproduce this issue because of the older bug overshadows your issue.
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.
-
Create document with Document/Transparent Background set, and a layer with black and white.
-
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).
-
I did a video on erase masking here:
-
On 7/18/2021 at 11:13 AM, RevTim said:
I'm sorry I've only just gor back to you. What a great tips! Thanks for those.
The Fade command isn't anything to do with layer opacity. After you have applied a filter, you go to the Layer menu and the top item will be "Fade (filter name)". You can then Fade the filter by any amount. I'm sorry for the confusion. I should have made it clear that when I say Layer> or Edit> I mean click on those menus as in Edit>Fill with primary colour, or Filters>Blur>etc.
Oh yes. Not looked at that before. Fade seems to be like Opacity but for just-applied destructive filter (and also allows Blend Modes). I very largely use non-destructive. But there are some destructive-only, so this can be useful.
Thanks!
-
Just a tiddler.
In creating a macro, do something that will create a long line of text in the macro instructions list, such as renaming a layer with a long name. The name disappears under the right border of the macro panel. All well and good.
However, if you have an adjustment where there is a 'Set adjustment parameters' line in the macro listing, the 'Edit' cogwheel disappears.
Resizing the macro panel reveals the cogwheel has been justified right using the length of the longest text rather than the width of the window.
Edit: Same issue with the checkboxes. I also just had a variant where the checkbox disappeared but the cogwheel remained. May be due to length of text string.
-
Further data:
- Tried it with other groups, even a stack of them. Any selected group (even in the middle) always get rasterised.
- Key cause is when you have 'set adjustment parameters' in the macro which allows run-time adjustment, plus group selected.
-
7 minutes ago, carl123 said:
Edit your macro and then add another "Clear selection" command at the very end of it
Then it will work as you want it to
Great workaround. Thanks, @carl123.
Still a bug, though.
-
Start with pixel image. Run attached macro. It creates a group containing a few adjustments. Run the macro again. The assistant decides to rasterise the group. As the group only contains adjustments, the result is that the adjustments made by it are lost. Doing it all by hand rather than macro results in no problems.
-
14 hours ago, RevTim said:
I've found it really difficult to find any info about how PTs work. I worked out most of what I've done by tweaking existing PTs and see what happens (or doesn't!).
I plan to do a VERY basic 101 tutorial to show what I've learned. Iv'e managed to work out some very basic coding syntax used to make expressions (which I think is C++), but only some, and certainly don't understand the maths behind it. The problem we all have is that PTs are more commonly used by 3D modellers to create surface texture and shape - no good to us 2D artists!
What we all need is a step-by-step "do this, type this, then this and this happens" primer.
In the mean time, I've found one really weird maths controller called "fmod". Try this:
fmod (x/(w/a),y/(h/b))
R a Width Controller 13
R b Height Controller 4
...
Not sure what use that is, but it's interesting
I think this is as follows:
- In maths, 'modulus' is the same as 'remainder'.
- In programming, this is often abbreviated to 'mod'. Other versions here.
- The C++ version of fmod is here. I think Affinity uses this.
- In brief, fmod(a,b) divides a by b and returns the decimal (floating point) remainder, so fmod(7.5,5) is 2.5
In the usage above, fmod (x/(w/a),y/(h/b) is presumably assigned to R, G and B, and:
- x and y are the number of pixels from the left and top
- w and h are the width and height of the viewport in pixels
- a is set as 13 and b as 4
- For convenience, assume w=1300 and h=1000
- So w/a=100 and h/b=250
- Now formula is fmod(x/100,y/250)
- Take one row, say y=250. Now we have fmod(0.01*x,1)
- When x is less than 100, the result goes from 0 to 1, giving black to white, which is the left border
- When x is 101, the result is 1.01, which is clamped to 0..1 for display and so appears white. This repeats until x=199, giving the white band.
- When x gets to 200, the remainder now returns to zero, so we return to the gradient.
- As y gets larger, the white band get wider.
- And so on.
-
-
Love your use of PT formulae. There's been a bunch of moans of the forum about a lack of documentation of the functions therein. Do you have a reference for where to find more about these? I've heard tell that there may be info in places like GitHub and StackOverflow.
Tx
-
Brilliant! Love the PT adjustments. Interesting use of blurs, too.
When starting from a stock photo, try:
- File/New then just hit 'Create'. Doesn't matter what shape/size the canvas is.
- Find and drag in image from Stock tab.
- Document/Clip Canvas.
- Layer/Rasterise.
The Clip Canvas will automatically resize the canvas to fit the image.
I'm guessing 'Fade' means reduce Opacity of layer.
If Median Blur is for edge-preserving blur, you could also try Bilateral Blur, which can give a bit better results for this.
-
-
- Start with a lower resolution pixel image.
- Add live adjustment layer and adjust.
- Copy and paste adjustment layer to a higher resolution pixel image. Effect transfers correctly to whole image.
-
Paint black on adjustment layer to mask out a part of the effect.
- Problem: this only works on an area the size of the original lower resolution image.
Yes, the mask could contain painted areas from the original image. Yet when the masking has not been used in the original, it is surprising and inconvenient when it appears in the second image. When the mask is unused, it would be very helpful if this problem could be fixed.
I found this when setting a Selective Colour on a lower-res image of a colour wheel and then copying it to another image. A workaround is to add a new mask to the Selective Colour.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
-
7 hours ago, MEB said:
Hi @dmstracker,
I'm getting the results you are reporting. The Refine Selection doesn't work at all if the Quick Mask is activated. I'm not sure it's supposed to work in those circumstances (It does work fine if you disable the Quick Mask). I guess it should exit Quick Mask mode automatically and switch to Refine.
I will check with the dev team and will get back to you.Thanks, @MEB. See response to @Gabe. A simple bug reporting system might help all round.
-
1 hour ago, Gabe said:
Hi @dmstraker,
So that we are able to investigate bugs thoroughly could you please follow this link and update this post with the followings: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/forum/71-bug-reporting/
Infor requested at link:
-
Are you using the latest release version?
(here's how to check) -
Can you reproduce it?
(if you cannot then we may struggle to also, making it even harder to fix) - Does it happen for a new document? If not do you have a document you can share that shows the problem?
- If you cannot provide a sample document then please give an accurate description of the problem for example it should include most of the following:
- What is your operating system and version (Windows 10, OSX Mojave, iOS 12 etc)?
- What happened for you (and what you expected to happen)
- Provide a recipe for creating the problem (step-by-step what you did).
- Screenshots (very handy) or a screen capture/video.
- Any unusual hardware (like tablets or external monitors or drives that may affect things) or relevant other applications like font managers or display managers.
- Did this same thing used to work and if so have you changed anything recently? (software or hardware)
I can see a dilemma here. As QA, you want two things: (a) that users report bugs, and (b) that they give you information so you can easily verify the bugs. The dilemma is that the more info you request from users (for (b)), the less likely they are to report bugs (as (a)).
As a user, I'm happy to donate some time to report potential bugs. And as an ex-dev/QA, I'm more willing than most to spend more time on this. But like most people, I'm averse to hassle, and will weigh this against the desire to help.
So:
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4.a. Windows 10 Home latest. Version 2004. Installed 09/02/2021. OS build 19041.985. Windows Feature Experience Pack 120.2212.2020.0
4.b.i. What happened for me was:
4.b.i.1. I made a selection using the selection brush.
4.b.i.2. I turned on the quick mask to see more clearly what I had selected.
4.b.i.3. I continued to use the selection brush.
4.b.i.4. I clicked on 'Refine'.
4.b.i.5. Under 'Output', I selected 'New Layer'.
4.b.i.6. I clicked on 'Apply'.
4.b.i.7. The result was that:
4.b.i.7.a. The selection was not copied to a new layer.
4.b.i.7.b. The pixel layer was turned off, so a checkerboard appeared.
4.b.i.7.c. The selection was lost.
4.b.ii.a. What I was expecting was that the selected area would be refined, colour decontaminated, and placed on a new layer.
4.b.ii.b. If Refine would not work I would expect a click on the Refine button to result in no effect, or an explanatory popup.
4.c. To reproduce this:
4.c.i. In a pixel layer, make a selection using the selection brush.
4.c.ii. Turn on the quick mask.
4.c.iii. Click on 'Refine'.
4.c.iv. Under 'Output', select 'New Layer'.
4.c.v. Click on 'Apply'.
4.d. Screen shots? Videos? I've already spent quite a while on the above. If you require more, please let me know and I will supply.
4.e. External hardware include old USB Bamboo tablet, but this is not used, amplifier for speakers, Focusrite Solo microphone preamp, Dynamite inline preamp, Shure XLR microphone, Epson P600 printer.
4.f. I don't know if it used to work. It just happened so I thought I'd help out by reporting it. Nothing changed recently.
Phew. Not something I'll plan to do again. But it is replying literally to the request.
Can I may make a suggestion? How about doing an online bug reporting system. Nothing complex, but designed to combine acquiring the most useful information while making supply of this as easy as possible. Good UX and all that. For example radio buttons, etc. for one-click data supply.
-
Are you using the latest release version?
Dear Serif. Please, can I give you money?
in Customer Service, Accounts and Purchasing
Posted
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