Medical Officer Bones

In my experience the standard shadow effect settings in all software generally also needs additional manipulation to look good, depending on the job. I almost never am satisfied with the default settings. The settings of Outer Shadow in Affinity and Drop Shadow in other design software are as good as identical, excepting the default settings. But I do agree that it is rather odd that the Affinity devs decided to label it Outer Shadow and zero out the default settings, because: most users would expect a standard Drop Shadow effect to be present in design software and one with acceptable default settings; Drop Shadow is an effect extensively used (Outer Shadow, however, much less so in my experience); a typical user would look for the same effect name, which is standard in all other design software (Outer Shadow is unique, as far as I am aware). And even the default settings don't "do" anything in this case, which can be confusing to novice users. Same with other effects. In my experience users tend to expect an immediate visual response from the design software, and that is exactly how it is generally done in most other design software. Apply an effect, see the effect applied, change the settings. In Affinity it works like: Activate the effect, nothing happens. Change the settings one by one to conjure up the intended effect. The Affinity user experience does seem to go against the commonly accepted and expected one. Whether this is good UX or a less well thought design choice I will leave up to you. Funnily enough I never noticed the change in effect name in Affinity before this discussion: my mind automatically 'translated' Outer Shadow to Drop Shadow. Never noticed the difference before :-)

Agreed with the OP on all counts. Here are some of my observations. The keyboard shortcuts preference screen cannot be resized. This leads to unnecessary scrolling and extra effort to locate an option in the list. Other preference screens, such as Abbreviations and Auto-Correct in Publisher also cannot be resized, leading to similar user frustrations. The search option is almost useless in practice. Entering "Use" highlights four categories, but the actual preference options remain unexposed. A much more usable method would be to include a simple dropdown list that lists the found properties, and when clicked immediately opens the intended preference screen, as well as highlighting it. Allow the user to use the up and down cursor keys to navigate the found entries in this dropdown list. Hitting the Enter key in the search field should not close the Preferences window. Hitting the Enter key at any time closes the Preferences dialog. Frustrating to the user, because the user may not have noticed that they mis-clicked an input field, still continue typing and hit Enter. Result: dialog closes. Besides, Escape already closes the dialog. The Escape and Enter keys have very different usability connotations in a dialog. In the beginning I kept clicking the "Next" and "Previous" buttons to attempt to paginate through the main option screens. But instead these act like browser buttons, making it frustratingly hard to quickly browse the main preference screens. Click a preference category. Can't find the option? Go back to the main preferences entries. Click another. Still not found? Go back, and try again. A chore, in particular when it is unclear where a specific option can be found. If the Next and Previous buttons would allow the user to quickly page between preference categories a lot of wasted time clicking around could be avoided. In short allow the user to quickly browse/paginate the main preference screens. (And yes, I am aware of how Apple abuses these as well.) Page up and down keys could be used to effectively paginate from one preference category to the next. And/or right and left cursor keys. Miscellaneous screen's top content is center aligned, which is inconsistent with all the other screens. Check boxes should be left aligned instead. Instead of a slow, cumbersome and hidden dropdown list to browse to a specific preference category, list all main preference categories in a list on the left of the main preference dialog. Highlight the one currently browsed. 1) far easier and efficient to navigate, 2) far better indication which settings the user is currently viewing. (The currently used category word is hardly noticed due to visual hierarchy problems. Some preference screens are "uber"-filled with options, without proper visual grouping or even adequate vertical space used. The General options is particularly busy with no apparent logical grouping, but other screens are problematic in this respect too. The lack of visual subgrouping of options leads to cognitive overload and confusion on many preference screens. For example, the Performance screen puts four distinct subcategories of settings in one densely populated screen, with no visual grouping. All in all, the preferences dialog in Affinity is among the worst that I have encountered so far in regards to usability. I am used to both Mac and Windows in my work. Rely foremost on active user testing rather than anything else. What works in one situation, may backfire in another. Avoid blatantly copying GUIs. Besides, the Mac Preferences dialog is far more configurable and evolved user experience than the one in Affinity, which is a shadow of the former.

Drop Shadow in Page Plus and Outer Shadow as a layer effect are pretty much the same thing. To simplify shadow creation, use the Effects panel, and twirl down the Outer Shadow options. Apply the effect, and then use the Offset Tool button to quickly drag the shadow in the view. This is a quicker method to control the effect. A potential issue is that Affinity does not remember the settings you used previously, and always resets to the defaults. Most users tend to use the Outer Shadow layer effect to create a drop shadow effect, and it would be handy if Affinity would remember the last used settings in these cases. For images and drop shadow effects you can recreate Page Plus's drop shadow presets by right-mouse clicking an image with an outer shadow effect, and then select "Create Style". This adds the currently applied Effects setting to the Styles list panel. Next time you need a drop shadow, select the image, and apply the style. Caveat: Styles in Affinity seem to save ALL settings, including fill/stroke colour settings. If you apply this drop shadow style to a vector object or text, the fill and stroke settings will be set to "none", which is frustrating. I haven't found a way to prevent this from happening. The way object styles in Affinity function seems to save all visual settings, and there doesn't seem to be a method to exclude specific visual properties, unlike InDesign and other design software. By the way, Page Plus also has a dedicated Shadow tool. Affinity Publisher does not include a feature like that.

Out of curiosity: why would you decide to continue teaching software that was discontinued 3 years ago? That would be doing your students a disservice. They wouldn't even be able to purchase the software, because Serif no longer sells it. I noticed on your SeniorNet site that other Affinity products are already being taught. Use Affinity Publisher. If you are worried about epub: 1) fixed layout epubs (which do not have flowing text on ereaders) are not supported well or at all on Windows, Android, and Linux. It's basically a hit-and-miss affair. If publishing such a book, the various ereaders and platforms require specific requirements. Too much too handle for most people, really. 2) flowing epubs work well generally. While Affinity Publisher does not export directly to epub, you could use an ebook converter like the free Calibre to convert an exported PDF from Publisher, and then open the epub in the free Sigil to fix layout issues an add epub specific features. Or you could introduce them to an online ebook publishing solution like PressBooks. Or just use Sigil (which is free) and Calibre to convert and create ebooks directly.

I checked the website image, and the lighting cast on the black surface at the top and circular gradient behind the large Korean golden type both have visible banding. This is caused by dark values transitioning into darker values, and the 8bit RGB space just doesn't have the colour values range to create smooth transitions. The lighting in the top image is less noticeable due to dithering. The circular gradient's banding is much worse because no dithering or noise is applied to it (a commonly used trick to reduce the banding effect to our eyes). Whether these will be seen by the viewer depends on the screen and how it is calibrated. Good calibrated screens will display the banding more than others. And interpolation may reduce the apparent visual banding as well when the image is scaled down on a smaller screen. On badly calibrated screens the banding may not be visible at all. A small mobile screen may hide the banding to our eyes. Fact remains, banding is apparent on a good calibrated screen. With gradients and lighting at such limited value ranges this is an expected outcome. To reduce the banding noise and/or dithering can be applied to simulate subtler transitions. Most viewers will probably not notice the banding and focus on the other objects in your layout. And most users are viewing this with screens on which it is difficult to see the banding anyway. Besides, JPG is problematic as well in these cases. Gradients and JPG compression are no friends at all. Even at a higher compression level (like the one used in your image: 95%) will still cause obvious visual banding in many cases.

Thanks for the suggestion. I had thought of this myself, but it is a destructive method and a bit too time and effort is involved. Switching to another app which does do proper sharp embossing/beveling seems much more time efficient... I wonder why the Affinity team hasn't picked up this and fixed it. Seems reasonably simple to fix: just apply smooth normal shading.

Well, there is always Blender's SVG output. The built-in SVG export doesn't export lighting, but this one does: https://blenderartists.org/t/svg-output-script/566412 It exports pure vector. Not perfect, but a good base for further editing.

Today I tested the various TIFF variants and compared with JP2. In all cases I saved lossless when given a choice. Test file: 3664x2744px LAB 16bpc, original NRW raw file size: 15.6MB PSD: 57.5MB TIFF unpacked: 57.5MB TIFF LZW packed: 19.4MB TIFF ZIP packed: 17.3MB JP2 Lossless (Photoshop CS5): 35.5MB TIFF ZIP (Photoshop CS5): 29.1MB Anyway, it seems TIFF ZIP packed performs best. Much better than JP2 in Photoshop CS5. JP2 does not perform better at all in my tests here. Unless lossy JP2 files are used, which defeats the purpose of archiving the image data as-is, of course. One more thing to consider: JP2 files are very slow to process compared to TIFF ZIP and other file formats. Compression as well as decompression take much longer. In short: much longer processing times and larger files seemingly aren't favouring the use of JPEG2000. Even in good old Photoshop CS5 the JP2 file comes out bulkier than the TIFF ZIP version produced in Affinity Photo.

Beautiful photos! Nice work.

When I ask PhotoLine to save a LAB image as JPG2000 it warns that LAB space is not supported for that file format. Outside of Photoshop I'd be surprised if any other image editor will allow for this. Irfanview and PhotoLine have no issues opening these files, but the channels contain L, a, and b data rather than RGB data. I am certain other software which supports jp2 files will load them as expected, but with the Lab channels into RGB channels. It has nothing to do with colour profiles in this case. I think Photoshop embeds a parameter that tells it to interpret the channels as Lab instead of RGB. The solution is simple: if your image editor supports the loading the original jp2 LAB files and also maintains 16bpc, then it is a simple case of copying the correct channels into a Lab image. Which is what I did in PhotoLine and the action I uploaded earlier. There is no need to rescan unless you require a higher resolution. Just use PhotoLine and the action, or any other image editor that allows for this channel move. Or install a virtual machine with a free Windows image (available at the MS site), and install the trial of Photoshop CS5 to do the conversion for you to LAB tiff. Which is a properly supported format.

Wouldn't that convert it to RGB first? Does that PS file load up as a LAB file in Affinity, or do you need the extra step in Affinity and convert it to LAB mode? Because I think a straight conversion without any arbitrary colour space conversions would be preferable... When I open your files in PhotoLine they reset to 112ppi. Not sure why: in my experience more obscure file formats may not be supported the same way in various image editors. This may be one of those cases. Some do not even save the ppi value in the jpg2000 file format (ImageMagick comes to mind). The doggies file works fine, btw. I attached it. Thanks for the play. I learned some new channel processing methods. I never encountered a LAB file before that is opened as RGB. Moms_Dogs067.tif

I opened your posted file in Photoshop CS5 (trial version in a virtual Windows machine), and it is definitely not corrupted. It opens fine, and the resolution is 900x810 pixels, although the ppi is set to 300ppi (which has no bearing to the actual resolution). But in this case a higher resolution would not have resulted in a higher quality. The original photo seems very blurry anyway. The dust, however, looks very sharp!

Are you absolutely certain about the resolution of this particular file? Because I saved a new jp2 version with lossless compression in PhotoLine, and the file size is almost identical to the original file you posted here. I assume you originally saved lossless jp2 files? The file you posted has no more pixels in it - it is what it is, as far as I can tell. When I save a typical Photo ~3600x2500 16bpc photo in jp2 with lossless compression the resulting file size is around 40mb - a far cry from your posted file. Anyway, I've attached the action. It converts the opened file to LAB 16bpc in PhotoLine. I've also included a version which calls the tiff save option to speed up things. I encountered a couple of small bugs related to jp2 files and batch processing, though. Would you be able to share a file which you are certain contains a higher resolution photo? If saved lossless, it should be at least around the 20-30mb mark. rgb2lab.actions

File I/O related Photoshop plugins generally do not function in any image editor which supports the older Photoshop plugin standard. Affinity is no exception to this rule.

The conversion process is somewhat involved with copying channels. I am creating an action which will hopefully automate the entire thing. Might take an hour, or so, to debug (and I am having lunch :-) .

It worked! I will create an action for you, which can then be used to batch process the hundreds of images you have in one go in PhotoLine. I attached the fixed TIFF version, which is LAB 16bit and opens in Affinity Photo. Here is the result for you to check: Chris Birthday009.tif

The channels are read as RGB, while the actual channels are saved as LAB. So all the 16bit LAB information is still there, but it is interpreted as an RGB image: meaning the L channel resides in the R channel, the A channel in the G, and the B channel in the B channel. The is caused by saving a LAB 16bit image in JPG2000 in Photoshop. Photoshop allows the user to do things with certain file formats which lead to trouble when trying to process these images in just about any other image editor or viewer. Comparable to how Adobe abuses the TIFF format to embed a fully layered PSD file, which only Photoshop is able to read correctly. @DeepDesertPhoto Saving LAB channels in a JPG2000 file wasn't a great idea in the first place. RGB would have been more than enough for these slides. Next is coming up with a method to copy/convert the LAB information to RGB channels while working in RGB mode and automate that conversion in an action.

Just checked your file in PhotoLine, and the file opens in 16bit, but the colours are wrong. Probably something to do with the fact that you saved them in LAB mode. I will investigate further.

It is doubtful the Affinity devs will ever support JPF files. If, like you write, your intention is merely to convert all your 16bit JPF files to 16bit Tiff or PNG files, I suggest you look into the fully functional 30 day trial of PhotoLine, and use its batch processing to convert all your files in one go. PhotoLine reads and writes 16bit JPF files and retains the 16bit per channel information. PS you find this batch conversion option under File/Functions/Batch Converting in PhotoLine. The dialog is self-explanatory.

I snapped up Xara Designer Pro last year in a Humble Bundle deal for $10, or so. For quick 3d lettering alone it is actually quite useful, and definitely worth it. Can't compare to an actual 3d app, of course, but it still looks "juicy", if somewhat generic, and the speed at which these can be churned out is impressive. This example took two minutes - mostly time spent on adjusting the three point lighting for each. Can't beat that speed! And it renders to a high quality vector. These are not bitmaps in Xara, which is something to consider as well. Unfortunately, trying to export these as vector for import in other applications will not work (I tried!).

The trouble is that duplicating the layer two or three times to increase the contrast again returns the visible banding. It's an original attempt to solve this, but "close but no sigar" comes to mind :-) No, it should be fixed by the developers.

The wanted bevel is a straightforward sharp looking one, not a rounded fuzzy effect. This is a simplified version in Affinity: Notice the visible steps. The soften parameter will soften the bevel's edges too much, and cannot be applied. The following three examples are produced in Corel Painter (Bevel World layer effect), PhotoLine (layer effect), and Xara (bevel tool). Notice the smooth looking transitions of the bevels. I am not including Photoshop's inner emboss layer effect, because it fails in this case as well, and is not worth the effort. It seems it is possible to achieve a nice looking usable sharp-edged emboss effect in other software. Obviously I could use 3d software (Blender, for example) to create even more interesting looking 3d lettering, but here I just want to create a simple bevel/embossing effect, which seems impossible to pull off adequately in Affinity with its layer effect.

Photoshop/InDesign do a pretty poor job too, as does the online PhotoPea. Both Adobe and Affinity generate unusable sharp bevels/embossing. Corel Painter's "Bevel World" layer effect does a good job, as do the layer effect in PhotoLine and Xara's bevel tool. Xara includes a real 3d extruded bevel effect as well. All are live effects, and look far better when compared to Affinity and Adobe. Technically it should be achievable then for the Affinity devs to achieve a similar quality effect. The current quality of the sharp bevel effect in Photo is unacceptable, unfortunately. I hope they will pick up on this and improve the effect.

Yes, of course. I mentioned I don't want to use that option because it softens the edges too much, and before the banding sort-of is smoothed out, the entire look is destroyed and far too blurred.

Does anyone know of a method to fix the ugly banding in this emboss effect in Affinity Photo? I don't want to use soften. The emboss/bevel should remain sharp looking. No matter what I try, the banding persists. It's as if a low resolution 3d mesh is used without normal smoothing applied (to speak in 3d terminology). I attached the original file. emboss_ugly.afphoto