Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Jamon

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Jamon got a reaction from dmstraker in Affinity Photo Customer Beta - 1.6.0.76   
    Still no support for Sony RX100 5. Syncing the lens database with upstream should be automated and occur with every update. It was committed in March. This is July. By the time you update the lens database the RX100 6 will be out.
    https://github.com/lensfun/lensfun/commit/29df5f9601d06750493510fe2a9d4af913555ead
  2. Like
    Jamon got a reaction from JustGeorge in "Photo" is not a product name   
    I've seen Affinity Photo referred to as "Photo".
     
    Lenovo, a computer hardware company, had a product called the "ThinkPad Tablet". Imagine if you saw employees of Lenovo referring to "Tablet", with sentences such as, "Tablet is an amazing device! Not only can you watch movies on Tablet, but you can call your friends too!"
     
    In case you do not immediately feel and understand what's wrong with that, "tablet" is a common generic term that describes an entire class of hardware within that space. "Photo" is already a commonly used shorthand within this space for "photograph". "I edited my photo with Photo", is convoluted.
     
    The product names aren't really matched. There's Affinity Designer, which implies it designs, or is used by designers. But then there's Affinity Photo, which does not photo, and is not used by photos.
     
    But regardless, "Affinity" is the unique identifier for the products. "Designer" and "Photo" wouldn't mean anything to anyone. They are far too generic of words. But "Affinity Designer" and "Affinity Photo", are unique.
     
    If one must use a shorthand, simply "Affinity" is better than "Photo", and it's usually obvious from context which one you're referring to. "Affinity Photo" isn't so long to really need a shorthand, but "AP" is even shorter if you do.
     
    Please don't refer to it as "Photo" though, as it overlaps terms, doesn't convey enough meaning, and sounds ridiculous: "Before you could edit photos on a tablet with Photo on the Tablet using a Wacom stylus; but now, you can also edit photos on the iOS version of Photo using a Pencil on the iPad!"
  3. Like
    Jamon got a reaction from Alfred in Affinity One - Unified Product   
    In Affinity Photo you can press P for the pen tool, and draw a vectored line, click the stroke parameter to increase it to 3 pt, then click the "fx" on the layer, enable "Gaussian Blur", and drag the slider.
     
    They're basically the same software. Affinity Design is a kind of "persona", that's focused on vectors; and Affinity Photo is focused on pixels. You could smash them together, but you'd need to implement those modes anyways, to optimize which tools are displayed.
     
    Having dedicated apps can be like having a fork and a spoon, where you could make a "spork", but then it's not optimized for either case.
     
    If I want to do more complicated vector work, I can do it in Designer, ctrl+g to group it, ctrl+c to copy, switch back over to Photo, and paste.
     
    I can also use "Edit in Designer" to switch apps, then "Edit in Photo" to switch back. It's basically the same software, so it's like switching modes.
     
    It's a matter of organizational preference whether they're a single app or not. The Mac approach might be unification, but the Unix approach is dedicated tools. It doesn't necessarily mean that a unified interface would be simpler. It would be tricky to organize, and could end up more complicated in practice than separate apps.
     
    The tools are made for people, and most "photographers" will never need to draw, and most "designers" will never need to develop raw images or merge multiple exposures. By separating the software, it's easier to focus on supporting each group of people, in simpler ways.
     
    It's fun to think about and discuss. I can certainly see why an "Affinity One" would be a neat idea. For more advanced users especially, having a mess of menus and options might be exciting and feel more powerful. But it's Serif's project, not ours; and they're doing just fine.
     
    Having Photo and Designer works, and most importantly right now is to focus on the core basics, to polish what they've got.
  4. Like
    Jamon got a reaction from markw in Affinity One - Unified Product   
    In Affinity Photo you can press P for the pen tool, and draw a vectored line, click the stroke parameter to increase it to 3 pt, then click the "fx" on the layer, enable "Gaussian Blur", and drag the slider.
     
    They're basically the same software. Affinity Design is a kind of "persona", that's focused on vectors; and Affinity Photo is focused on pixels. You could smash them together, but you'd need to implement those modes anyways, to optimize which tools are displayed.
     
    Having dedicated apps can be like having a fork and a spoon, where you could make a "spork", but then it's not optimized for either case.
     
    If I want to do more complicated vector work, I can do it in Designer, ctrl+g to group it, ctrl+c to copy, switch back over to Photo, and paste.
     
    I can also use "Edit in Designer" to switch apps, then "Edit in Photo" to switch back. It's basically the same software, so it's like switching modes.
     
    It's a matter of organizational preference whether they're a single app or not. The Mac approach might be unification, but the Unix approach is dedicated tools. It doesn't necessarily mean that a unified interface would be simpler. It would be tricky to organize, and could end up more complicated in practice than separate apps.
     
    The tools are made for people, and most "photographers" will never need to draw, and most "designers" will never need to develop raw images or merge multiple exposures. By separating the software, it's easier to focus on supporting each group of people, in simpler ways.
     
    It's fun to think about and discuss. I can certainly see why an "Affinity One" would be a neat idea. For more advanced users especially, having a mess of menus and options might be exciting and feel more powerful. But it's Serif's project, not ours; and they're doing just fine.
     
    Having Photo and Designer works, and most importantly right now is to focus on the core basics, to polish what they've got.
  5. Like
    Jamon got a reaction from anon1 in Affinity One - Unified Product   
    In Affinity Photo you can press P for the pen tool, and draw a vectored line, click the stroke parameter to increase it to 3 pt, then click the "fx" on the layer, enable "Gaussian Blur", and drag the slider.
     
    They're basically the same software. Affinity Design is a kind of "persona", that's focused on vectors; and Affinity Photo is focused on pixels. You could smash them together, but you'd need to implement those modes anyways, to optimize which tools are displayed.
     
    Having dedicated apps can be like having a fork and a spoon, where you could make a "spork", but then it's not optimized for either case.
     
    If I want to do more complicated vector work, I can do it in Designer, ctrl+g to group it, ctrl+c to copy, switch back over to Photo, and paste.
     
    I can also use "Edit in Designer" to switch apps, then "Edit in Photo" to switch back. It's basically the same software, so it's like switching modes.
     
    It's a matter of organizational preference whether they're a single app or not. The Mac approach might be unification, but the Unix approach is dedicated tools. It doesn't necessarily mean that a unified interface would be simpler. It would be tricky to organize, and could end up more complicated in practice than separate apps.
     
    The tools are made for people, and most "photographers" will never need to draw, and most "designers" will never need to develop raw images or merge multiple exposures. By separating the software, it's easier to focus on supporting each group of people, in simpler ways.
     
    It's fun to think about and discuss. I can certainly see why an "Affinity One" would be a neat idea. For more advanced users especially, having a mess of menus and options might be exciting and feel more powerful. But it's Serif's project, not ours; and they're doing just fine.
     
    Having Photo and Designer works, and most importantly right now is to focus on the core basics, to polish what they've got.
  6. Like
    Jamon got a reaction from Leigh in How to turn off the brush when drawing the image?   
    Edit > Preferences > User Interface > ☐ Show brush previews
     
  7. Like
    Jamon got a reaction from artofmtl in ProPhoto vs sRGB Video   
    Extract the attached file, then select it in Affinity with:
    File > Import ICC Profile It's copied to:
    C:\Users\$user\AppData\Roaming\Affinity\Photo\1.0\profiles ProPhotoRGB.zip
  8. Like
    Jamon got a reaction from SrPx in Option to disable the image trembling (refresh), in preferences or the like   
    Edit > Preferences > Performance > Retina Rendering: High quality (Slowest)
     
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.