[Anti-AI tools for user created images]

6 minutes ago, AffinityMakesMeSmile said:

Late to the Adobe Firefly party, but, I have been playing around with Firefly for two days now, and, I am VERY impressed with the results!

Much joy and easy to bring hours after hours with Firefly… Recommend others to join the Beta-part of Firefly.

Um, I'm not sure you've commented on the right topic – I mean, the title clearly says »Anti-AI tools« while you're suggesting we join and try an AI tool.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? 🤔

[Questions About Recording Macros – What Works, What Doesn’t and Workarounds or Alternative Ways]

5 minutes ago, David in Яuislip said:

I don't understand your term nesting. What I described was a means to salvage a hypothetical 65 step macro which had an error at step2
You can't edit macros, all you can do is disable steps with the checkboxes and append commands to the end by recording new steps
So in that case, the defective macro is replaced by a new front end which then calls the old first macro with the first two steps disabled ie one defective macro becomes two. It's not elegant and I don't do it, I prefer to get all the steps correct and re-record it completely. However, this clunkiness can help if you're trying to perfect a long macro as you can keep trying different approaches at the end knowing that the first part is ok
I believe it's possible to construct macros as sort of modules which you can then use in various SupremeCommanderMacros™©® where the modules can be called however and in what order you want but I don't do that either
I've already pointed to the problem with selecting layers, the clipboard is next to useless, resizing stuff is a nightmare best avoided, there's no file saving other than what New Batch Job can do
Good luck with your quest, you'll probably hit the same wall that many of us have, sometimes you'll get a lightbulb moment, sometimes it's best to give up
 

Yeah, over the years I collected many bumps. 😅

Btw. I edited my comment, probably a minute before you quoted me, so feel free to re-read it. 😁

[Questions About Recording Macros – What Works, What Doesn’t and Workarounds or Alternative Ways]

Yesterday I had something of a breakthrough, I finally got my macro to work flawlessly. ✨
The first thing the macro does is deselect everything – nothing is selected – in order to follow my principle to make it as independent and nondestructive as possible, right until the end. And it worked like a charm!

Now, running it today with the same document, the very first thing that happens is this:

It was rasterised because it wasn't rasterised – got it, thanks for that very detailed explanation! 🤦‍♂️

The base layer/group, which doesn’t even get touched by the action, instantly gets rasterised without any reason. Why? Why now? What has changed?!
There is literally no previously selected layer, and even if there were, it wouldn't affect the Macro because it works with its own newly added layers!

Man, this whole macro thing is so bloody buggy. It's so frustrating that I might just stop trying and accept that they're not really an alternative to Actions at this point. Damn!

And yes, I know you can turn this off in the Assistants options – it's just that you shouldn't have to because there’s no reason for it!

[Questions About Recording Macros – What Works, What Doesn’t and Workarounds or Alternative Ways]

On 5/13/2023 at 10:01 AM, David in Яuislip said:

No, it's not that bad
Just turn off the first two steps and save to Library as Part2
Record a new macro
step 1 Same as the old one
step 2 The correct step 2
step 3 Call Part2

Have a look at this
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/182995-functionality-no-longer-in-photo-v2/#comment-1061879
and the url link, it might explain your problems with recording the selection of a particular layer. I have not investigated child layers, I lost the will to live

The secret to retaining your sanity when using macros is being able to outthink the Serif programmers and realising when to give up

Right, so it's nesting then? Because I want to avoid nesting at all costs, because for me it adds a whole new level of confusion and complexity to the subject. Instead of correcting in one macro, you end up having to correct in 3 – that just screams for more continuity errors to me. 🥴

Or does it add the raw steps instead of linking other macros? 🤔

Forget all that, I just tried this. Setting up the custom input fields while running a macro within a macro is suuuuper messy – I'm out, sorry.

[Questions About Recording Macros – What Works, What Doesn’t and Workarounds or Alternative Ways]

I just don't get it … why won’t Photo offer me the first option, select the layer by name? As I understand it, it's literally one of the most basic tasks – select a layer called »Base« within that group. I don't want to »Select child number 1«, I want the layer with that exact name. Why is this option not available? Man, this is getting me all worked up and I have not even had a proper breakfast. 😩

[Questions About Recording Macros – What Works, What Doesn’t and Workarounds or Alternative Ways]

9 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

 

That many steps in a macro makes me nervous. I record several short Macros, then record a macro which is just playing all the different macros in the proper order, not necessarily the order I recorded them in. "Editing" becomes easier.

I was also thinking about this kind of workaround (there it is again), macros that build on top of each other.
While yes, single macros creating one big macro makes them easier to edit, it adds another level of complexity imo. 🫠

Also, of the 65 single actions, about 30% are a combination of »select parent layer«, »select group« and/or »select layer x«. 😩

[Questions About Recording Macros – What Works, What Doesn’t and Workarounds or Alternative Ways]

10 minutes ago, David in Яuislip said:

I'm a bit short of time at the moment, hopefully this picture tells a story. Editing macros is not possible and the workarounds are woeful, it is what it is

Ah yes, I hadn't really thought of it that way – thanks @David in Яuislip!
But to me it just feels like cluttering up the macro even more, besides I’m completely loosing overview. Argh!

Edit: Oh wait, but that means … if, hypothetically speaking, steps 3-65 were correct but step 2 was wrong … I'd have to redo steps 2-65? 🤣

Haha … and here I thought macros were there to save us time and make our lives easier. I guess I was wrong all along. 🥲

[Questions About Recording Macros – What Works, What Doesn’t and Workarounds or Alternative Ways]

30 minutes ago, firstdefence said:

No, it's the macro that is recorded in the history not the macro steps contained within, so you would undo the macro and consequently all of the steps contained therein. I'm assuming you'd like to be able to expand the recorded macro in the history to step back a few steps or simply to see the process has been run correctly?

Yeah, something like that. I'd like to follow the process and go back step by step and analyse at what point the action went wrong.

I know you can edit macros from the library. But even that's limited to a) what parameters to display while the macro is running, and b) either disabling or enabling certain actions of that macro. Rearranging is impossible.

This means that a) we can't analyse where a macro went wrong because it doesn't create a viewable/scrollable history, and b) we can't reorder certain actions because of logical errors. Man, both of these problems render the macros feature basically useless at this point. I’d rather memorize the steps and create the same thing from scratch every time. At least that way I get what I want/need. 😒

[Alignment Option – Use Key Object for Spacing Operations and from the Toolbar Pop-Up]

2 hours ago, fde101 said:

How would that work with a key object?

@fde101, asking the same question twice doesn’t change my first answer from three days ago – feel free to keep up. 😁

[Questions About Recording Macros – What Works, What Doesn’t and Workarounds or Alternative Ways]

Another question: Is there a way to show the individual actions in the history palette, rather than just the name of the macro that played? I'm having a really hard time with my macros and there's no way to find out at what point my sequence went wrong - there's just no way to undo it step by step, just the end result, which is completely different from what I saw when I created the action.

And even if I could understand where something went wrong in my macro, there is no way to rearrange/correct individual sections/actions within a macro. I’d have to start at 0. Ugh! Or am I missing something? 😩

I'm not talking about de-activating individual actions within a saved macro, I'm talking about changing the order in which they appear chronologically. (Even though I know it’ll probably break the Macro in another way, but than again you’d fix that as well.)

[Questions About Recording Macros – What Works, What Doesn’t and Workarounds or Alternative Ways]

14 minutes ago, firstdefence said:

Many things that cannot be done using mouse movement can be done using the menu selection, if a menu option exists, I know that you have to move the mouse to do that but you know what I mean.

So to that end you can create a fill layer and then from the Edit menu use Fill... and add a fill or so you would think, but, it doesn't work, how frustrating is that!!! what it appears to do is set the fill layer to a semi transparent state. 

Yes, there are countless problems I encounter all the time when trying to create a clean macro. The whole recording process isn't as smooth as I'd like it to be. Also, the actions within a recorded macro cannot be rearranged or deleted (only disabled), so there's no proper way to clean things up after recording – my OCD is in full swing rn. 😖

[Questions About Recording Macros – What Works, What Doesn’t and Workarounds or Alternative Ways]

Hey everyone,

This is a bit niche and I have not checked if a topic like this already exists. What I'm looking for is a compatibility guide with workarounds for creating macros. For the past few days I have been trying to create macros but keep getting stuck because its so unbelievably cumbersome. One big PIA is the level selection. It’s a mess with all its confirmation prompts – just select the damn level I clicked on already! Anyway, I already got used to that by now, that’s not the issue.

These two are my current questions, and I haven’t found a solution for it, maybe some of you have ideas?

1. Creating a fill layer and changing its colour
   It's just not possible, you'll get this warning and the colour will be reset:
   
2. Select all (as in an unspecified number) layers (to group them or similar)
   There's no keyboard shortcut or menu item that does this, as far as I know.
   Anyway, for some reason I didn't notice the option in the menu. It even has a shortcut! 🤦‍♂️
   Solution: Select → Select all Layers or ⌥⌘A

Do you have similar questions?
Is there maybe already a place where questions like these get asked and answered?
Does someone know how to get these operations to work or how to work around them?

Have a nice weekend
Dennis

[»Merge Visible« a Solid Pixel/Fill Layer and Add Noise Filter Layer Results in a Pixel Layer With Transparency?]

Thanks for your response and checking, @MEB!

[»Merge Visible« a Solid Pixel/Fill Layer and Add Noise Filter Layer Results in a Pixel Layer With Transparency?]

9 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Artboards and pixel layers seem to cause problems (viz, your other topic where I made a similar comment), and Artboards in Photo are an odd enough situation that this may also be related.

By the way, I do not see any transparency doing a Merge Visible. But I'm not sure what you're talking about as your video is not visible to me, due to lack of codecs. Perhaps you're using HEVC? (It would be nice to use a more common encoding, if so.)

Can you provide a screenshot of the application window so I can see what you're talking about?

Hey @walt.farrell,

sorry, I'm extremely unskilled with video codecs and screen capture stuff, on either Mac or Windows. 😅
I replaced the file ... I guess this one works better?

Otherwise you could try to reproduce it as mentioned above:

2 hours ago, Mr. Doodlezz said:

Try grouping the Add Noise filter layer with the Fill Layer below it in the attached file or »Merge Visible« and hide the layers beneath it.

[»Merge Visible« a Solid Pixel/Fill Layer and Add Noise Filter Layer Results in a Pixel Layer With Transparency?]

6 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

It is too early for me (here on the Wet Left Coast) to really offer more than an essentially useless observation that your 'expected' result can be achieved by removing the Artboard.

Heh, morning @Old Bruce – just got my afternoon tea as I’m reading this. 😁

Huh! You're right. Not having an artboard will render the merged layer correctly (e.g. no unexpected transparencies).
Although it probably shouldn't work that way … otherwise you'd have to delete artboards every time you tried to work in Designer and Photo, switching back and forth. 🫠

[»Merge Visible« a Solid Pixel/Fill Layer and Add Noise Filter Layer Results in a Pixel Layer With Transparency?]

Another observation I made: When you use the destructive filter Add Noise (Filters → Noise → Add Noise…) no transparency is created. Curious!

[»Merge Visible« a Solid Pixel/Fill Layer and Add Noise Filter Layer Results in a Pixel Layer With Transparency?]

Hey all,

today I noticed this strange behaviour that I have never seen before when merging layers. I was wondering if anyone could explain this to me.

I usually merge layers so that I get an exact replica of what was visible in the layers palette at that moment – taking into account transparency (or lack of it, in this case).

For some reason, Merge Visible (⌥+⇧+⌘+E) above a solid layer (pixel or fill) with an Add Noise filter layer on top of it results in a layer that suddenly shows transparent areas/single pixels. I don't get it. There's no transparency before merging, at least not that I know of.

Even stranger: Grouping the filter layer with the Add Noise filter layer gives a similar result – suddenly there's transparency, because the group blend mode is automatically set to »Passthrough«. Try grouping the Add Noise filter layer with the Fill Layer below it in the attached file or »Merge Visible« and hide the layers beneath it.

Ideas anyone? 🤔

 

 

Merge_Visible_Transparency.afphoto

[»Raster select all« Selects the Parent Pixel Layer Instead of Its Contents]

I've just tried something that leads me to believe that the Artboards are causing the strange behaviour.

[»Raster select all« Selects the Parent Pixel Layer Instead of Its Contents]

14 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

I think this may be another bug in working with pixel layers, and selecting, when you have multiple Artboards in the document.

I think we've seen several bugs with that combination. 

Can you recreate if you start with only a single Artboard? Or with a canvas?

Hey Walt,

yeah, I've tried a few different setups, but not all of them – it's a bit time-consuming since there are many factors that could lead to the issue.

[»Raster select all« Selects the Parent Pixel Layer Instead of Its Contents]

Hey all,

Is this behaviour intentional and if so, why is there no difference between the content types?

Scenario:

I'm working on a design I started in Designer with multiple artboards. I decided to add some pizzazz with a raster brushes on a designated pixel layer – either in Designer's Pixel Persona or via File → Edit in Photo (either works, behaviour is the same). I add a pixel layer and draw something. I realise that I have made a mistake and want to clear the layer and start again. I usually do this with a short succession of shortcuts: ⌘+A (in the History palette this is called »Raster select all«) to marquee the whole (visible) canvas and backspace or delete/⌦.

Expected Result:

The (visible) content of the pixel layer is removed.

Issue:

In my case, for some reason, the shortcut ignores the fact that I am currently working on a pixel layer, and instead of creating a marquee selection of its contents and deleting it, it selects the parent pixel layer itself and deletes it.

Now this might not be a big deal if it's a single layer, and you might argue »Why don't I just delete the layer and create a new pixel layer (⌘+⇧+N)?«
And I'd say »Sure, that might work for single, regular layers.«

The real problem is that this also works (or rather doesn't work) for linked pixel layers. If a single linked layer is deleted, it's not so easy to fix afterwards and involves copying, pasting, positioning if you've placed them in several different groups, shapes and so on – a bit of a PIA.

I also considered »Invert Pixel Selection« (Select → Invert Pixel Selection or ⌘+⇧+I) as a different approach, as this works with photo documents. But to no avail.

But I've noticed that this behaviour works for new documents, so I'm not sure why it doesn't work for my existing document.

Any help with this? Am I doing something wrong? Is the document somehow corrupt?

I’ve attached my document, feel free to try the scenario, try to select the whole pixel layer content and delete it with the designated shortcuts while maintaining the linked layer/s itself.

Cheers
Dennis

Raster_select_all_bug.afdesign

[Issues with Linked File: Layer Visibility Override]

2 minutes ago, Callum said:

I have asked a member of our QA team about the reversed Z order and they have indicated that this is by design.

Thanks
C

I still find it strange, though, and see no reason why it should be reversed between the different places in the apps. 🤷‍♂️
Just imagine having multiple layers with the same name (maybe colour-coded in the Layers palette so you know which is which), knowing that the bottom one in Designer is the one you want to disable in Publisher.
(Well, in that case I'd say the problem is how the creative behind it manages layer naming in the first place, but I won't deny this happens to me sometimes. 😅)

Anyway, thanks for confirming.

[Issues with Linked File: Layer Visibility Override]

32 minutes ago, Callum said:

Hi Dennis Richter,

We have made some changes to this feature in our latest beta build that might fix these issues please could you try it from the link below?

Thanks
C

Hey @Callum,

first time I tried it didn’t work. Second time it did. Curious. (Sidenote: Changing the user interface icons to mono crashed Publisher almost immediately.)
At first I suspected it wouldn't work because my actual document was set up in Designer 2.0.4, but that works fine too.

So visibility override seems to be working in BETA now, great! 👍

Can you maybe say something about the reversed order in the layer dropdown? Is this by design? It’s still reversed in BETA.

Thanks!

[Alignment Option – Use Key Object for Spacing Operations and from the Toolbar Pop-Up]

Sorry, now I understood your comment! Time to get a coffee, sorry, it's too early for me. 🥴

Well, it's still a bit misleading, isn't it? How would you know that »First Selected« equals »Key Object«? 🤔

But the Spacing Vertical/Horizontal operation does not work with Key Objects, or did I miss it as well?

[Alignment Option – Use Key Object for Spacing Operations and from the Toolbar Pop-Up]

3 minutes ago, ,,, said:

I did not notice or state that! In fact, I contradicted it. Please edit your comment.

Well, got you wrong then. 🤷‍♂️

At least for me there’s no way of getting them to work in the Toolbar popup.

[Alignment Option – Use Key Object for Spacing Operations and from the Toolbar Pop-Up]

4 hours ago, debraspicher said:

Their username is so unassuming, but they have come in with other gems in the past. I enjoy their responses. Even the snark.

I +1'ed your initial request for auto-distribute to key. You may be interested in editing your post (up to you).

Funny enough, @,,,'s method only works in the Context Toolbar for me, but not in the Toolbar version of the alignment functions which of course is what I would normally use. Weird.

Alignment handles might be helpful for your (or others') workflow also. Admittedly, breaking old AI habits is quite difficult, so I think keeping the key element method for all our alignment/distribution methods is good for helping newbies to transfer over their skills more easily. We have enough fun over here with just aligning to the "pixel grid".

@debraspicher, you speak from my heart! My very thoughts – all of them. 😅

That's also why I didn't react to the Alignment Handles. Though a good suggestion, I think that's a completely different matter, not related to my original subject.

I also edited the subject and description.

Like you I noticed that Key Objects only work for the Context Toolbar and added this to the description, along with a theory and possible solution of how it might work.