pixeldroid

Thanks so much!

Sorry, I didn't get notified of your reply. Yes, it is U3011. The monitor has hardware based presets accessed via an onscreen menu. One of the presets is Adobe RGB, but any of them besides the default ("Standard") look awful. All of the whites get tinted. When I get a chance, I'll try some of the tests you suggest. I want to move to a 4k monitor, but I'm waiting for 4K touchscreen.

# 1 Request: Add capability to make selection indicators permanently hidden. Using the spacebar is inconvenient and fails in some cases, such as when text is highlighted or the cursor is in a numerical entry pane. Same for Affinity Photo. We can't see our exact image through those distractions.

It would be helpful to add "Don't export Artboards hidden by export persona". As it is not, if all of the layers on an artboard are hidden, the artboard is included as a blank page in the pdf. Thx.

Thanks again for the reply. I have the Dell Color Profile set in Color Management and "System default WCS profile for sRGB viewing conditions" in the "Viewing condition profile" When I use the "Calibrate Display" tool, I get this warning: "This display currently uses a wide-gamut color profile. The Display Color Calibration will create a color profile with a conventional gamut, which may be a poor fit for this display and result in distorted color appearance. Do you want to continue anyway?" So I haven't tried it. I found that my Dell U3011 monitor has an sRGB preset available from the main menu (buttons on monitor). When I use it, the whites become a bit warm, and it didn't help w/the color differences. I'm thinking I should get a hardware calibration tool. I've seen the SpyderX recommended on YouTube. Do recommend that one? Thanks.

Thanks for taking the time to explain. This is quite confusing! As it turns out, the color match from my previous post is a file that has no embedded profile. I explored this further and I exported files using various combinations of profiles. My results: I found that color matching to what is displayed in AD is much better in FireFox than Chrome. With everything set to sRGB, including the embedded profile, the match in FFox is good. I'm not able to get a color match in Chrome with any embedded profiles. With AD prefs and the Doc set to sRGB, a "no profile" export does not match in either browser. My best results across both browsers is using the Dell profile in AD prefs and the source doc and then no embedded profile in the export. I studied up a bit on monitor calibration - that seem like a good idea - probably should've invested in it years ago... Any other insights or suggestions? Thanks again for your help.

Of course it won't look the same on 2 different monitors, but at least I can predict what I'll get from AD and AP. Am I missing something?

Compare the screen grabs and you tell me.

I didn't know about ICC profiles so I looked it up. There is a color profile for my Dell monitor installed in my system and it is also available in AD. That fixed the problem! I've been irritated by that for years! Thanks so much.

I have an AD document with color profile srgb IEC61966-2.1 and that is what I have set for RGB Color Profile in AD prefs. When I save the image as jpg and load into a browser the image is much more saturated. In the attached screen grab, the image can be seen in both AD and a browser. They are not far apart, so it is not a monitor calibration issue. When I save as jpg, I have tried both "embed ICC profile" and don't embed it - the results are the same. This is such a common task that it shouldn't even be an issue. Is there a setting that gives us wysiwyg between AD and the web? Thanks.

Interesting. I like to have a parent object which has the specific purpose of maintaining a heirarchy. Thanks.

In some of my AP files I have layers that are of the type (Layer). I don't see a way to make new layers of that type. Is that a legacy feature? Thanks.

AP and AF crash when I try to load a panorama jpg from my phone. I can open it in my image viewers. Attached for testing. 20190829_152542.zip

So it's a bug. But FWIW, I'd rather leave it in there and put the dev time into the capability to persistently hide the bounding box and selection rectangle - i.e. hide until unhidden by the user. I find that to be very annoying everytime I use your software.

Yep. From 14.75 MB to 9k. That's a bit better. Thanks.