Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jphthierry

  1. That’s what I thought too reading similar links but zoom has not impact lines do appear when printing
  2. Hi, I just noticed a weird behavior when exporting to PDF/X3: a fine grid is appearing on all images. And this is happening on one user account but not the other on the exact same computer, same afpub file. I tried to delete all user preferences, restart Publisher and export again: same result. Has anybody already seen this? Any idea what setting could cause this?
  3. version 1.8.3 fixed this particular issue for me. Still displayed correctly with 1.8.4
  4. Sorry, should have made it clearer: picture frame with an actual picture in it: created in 1.8.4 picture frame with a placeholder image: created in an older version
  5. I did copy the unsharp mask layer from an old document created in 1.8.2 (or 3, not 100% sure). I just created a new file in 1.8.4, added an unsharp mask on an image frame and it behaves as expected. Inserting a second image frame from my assets (meaning created in an older version of Publisher), same erratic behavior. File attached in case it helps troubleshooting. Recreating filters in the new version is a workaround but a heck of a job (existing assets, templates and publisher files to be reworked one by one) test file created in 1.8.4.afpub
  6. Hi, I had an issue when upgrading to 1.8.2 with unsharp masks applied on images. This has been fixed but something else seems to be broken now. And I did not notice it when sending PDF for print unfortunately... All my images have an unsharp mask layer applied. I was using a radius of 1.2px and a factor of 0.5. Opening my files now, meaning they've gone through version 1.8.2 and now 1.8.3, the radius setting is totally random and up to the roof. Some at 12.2px, some at 40.1px, some at 62.3px! Even worse, entering the radius manually does not behave as expected: entering 1.2px gets recorded as 1.3px. Closing the filter setting dialog and reopening it, it jumps to 1.5px; closing and opening a second time, 1.7px and so on. Couple of questions: is this a known issue? How can I fix it and get a consistent behavior? is there a way to alter all filters? I've got 10 magazines to go through now; hundreds of pages and images The simple test file attached is exhibiting the behavior I just described: the radius is going up every time I open the filter dialog. Thanks for you help! unsharp mask test.afpub
  7. Hi all, When opening files created in previous version, pages are not displayed properly. I have a few pages templates with text and image frames. The templates are displayed as expected. The pages are not (screenshots below). I tried reapplying the template; no impact. I tried printing: the preview is as I expect it to be. The first attachment show how the page is displayed; the second one how the template is displayed. It definitely looks like a bug. Any idea what could cause this? Regards P.S.: I can't attach the afpub document; too large.
  8. It still doesn't match PS. It's playing with a pixel layer all the time. The screenshot below might be clearer. What I am looking for is a way to clip an adjustment layer to another adjustment layer. The parent one is not tied up to a pixel layer. I thought of creating a mask and then nesting adjustments below it; but it does exactly what the video is showing: it hides all pixels below
  9. Agree. The beauty in Photoshop is that you don’t even need a pixel layer as a base for clipping. Not only is it saving time, but it also give a lot of flexibility having a parent mask and using the child ones to tweak further. Not a show stopper for me as I am not time constrained but definitely a welcome feature going forward
  10. My engineer's brain likes to factorize whenever possible rather than copy/paste Just need to get used to a different way of doing things. Thanks for the tips!
  11. Thanks @PedroOfOz for pointing out this channel. There is a lot of information in there. That being said, it looks like he is copying the mask over and over and over. I ended up doing the same thing but finding it cumbersome (probably because I am used to either clipping or creating a group of adjustments with a mask on the group with photoshop).
  12. Back to Affinity after a while now that 1.7 is out. Your example does only partially answer my question. Imagine an image in which I want to apply different adjustments to the sky and the rest of the image. What I tend to to in PS is: create a selection for the sky create a first adjustment layer; its mask is the sky selection create as many adjustments layers as I want for the sky, clipping them to the first one I can do the same for the rest of the image. I only have to create the mask for the sky once. I can't figure out a way to do the same thing in Affinity Photo. Either I have to apply the same mask to all adjustment layers or I have to duplicate the initial pixel layer to have 2 distinct masks. Regards
  13. Hi all, I am facing the same lag (typically around 5s) on the histogram with the levels adjustment layer. Deactivating Metal and switching back to OpenGL fixed it for me. I also noticed layer masks thumbnails were updating way way faster. Not ideal though: the screen refreshes way faster with Metal selected in place of OpenGL
  14. Hi all, I am used to clip adjustment layers in Photoshop. What I mean by that is putting an adjustment layer in the stack, painting a mask on this adjustment layer and then adding another one clipped to it. I haven't found a way to do that in Affinity. Nesting adjustment layers doesn't work: the nested layer has no effect. Is there an "Affinity" way to do the same thing? Thanks for your help
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | 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.