GarryP

This second album cover has the theme of tiles on a floor slowly gliding apart (well, sort of). It's a bit "vertiginous" if you stare at it for a while. As with the first, I didn't have any real reason to create this aside from trying various techniques but if you think any changes need to be made then just tell me. (If I come up with any other abstract covers I'll add them to this thread so I don't pollute the forum with lots of similar threads.)

I thought I would have a play around with some features of AD and try my hand at some abstract art so I started to come up with various album covers (for albums that don't exist, for a band that doesn't exist). This first one is about branes (from string theory) colliding and merging. I'm not entirely sure about the whole thing so constructive comments/critisisms/suggestions are, as usual, welcome. If I get some good suggestions I might make a second version. Colours, fonts, composition, whatever you think is right or wrong, shout up.

Quite simply: Brilliant.

You're welcome It123, I'm glad my comments have helped a little. I'm really not an expert in this area, the things I've learned have just come from experience. Most of what I do with this is just for fun, as a kind of hobby. In case you're interested, I've attached samples of some silly things I did a while back. They're not perfect by any means but my aim was to see if I could add one image into another in such a way that a casual viewer wouldn't notice anything was going on at first. The main photos - I can't remember where I got them from but you can find examples here: http://www.clevelandseniors.com/people/vjday-kiss.htmand http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405277/Dr-Jesse-Marcel-Jr-claimed-handled-alien-debris-Roswell-crash-dies-reading-book-UFOs.html - were greyscale and of mixed quality and the "interloper" photos were full colour and much higher resolution. Perhaps you could practice on similar sorts of images, trying to blend one with another, rather than trying to get a lot of images working together at the same time. I found that concentrating on getting just two images looking reasonable together was helpful.

I don't have AP so I don't know how easy/difficult it is to do this sort of thing in AP but I've tried similar things in GIMP. I'll throw some comments out into the world and see what you think but please don't take anything I say as being part of an expert's definitive guide or anything like that. They're just things which I've spotted that, if it was my own image, I would try and look at for the next iteration. And I'm not an expert either. I agree with paristo that the edges between elements would look better "blended" in some way. When using multiple images it's usually good to make sure that you have them all at the same - or very similar - resolution. This makes it harder to spot the join and gives the overall image a more consistent look. There's a strange cream-coloured shape hovering over the tree just over the top-left of the second lamp from the left. Probably just a leftover from something else. I like the overall composition by the way. The elements have been added in positions where they look like they belong. If you use stock photos, try not to use ones with a watermark (e.g. the briefcase). I like the "shine" from the lamps but it might look better blurred/modified a bit. The "Heaven Express" text needs to be a little smaller to make it fit into the space you've put it in. Currently it overlaps. Also it might need to be on a very slight angle to match the train. The train seems to be only two-sided. We can see the front and the platform side but the other two sides (and the roof) are missing. They should be able to be seen through the windows. The "Last Will" sign looks a bit too "clean" when compared to the rest of the scene. Could it look a bit more "messy" perhaps? And that's probably more than enough comments from me for now. Like I said at the start of this, I'm not an expert and I might be being a bit too picky since it's your first try at this but I think it's best to be told things like this in the "safety" of a well-mannered and friendly forum than not know about them and get harsher criticisms in the wider world. I'm not criticising simply to point out mistakes, I'm just commenting on some areas that I would look to improve if it was my own work (and if I spotted them, as it's way too easy to get a blinkered view of your own work).

Nice. I only recently purchased AD myself and, apart from it missing some features that would make a real difference, it's so much easier to use than some other software I've had to wrangle with. I don't really have many comments but I would say that each one might look better with some kind of "gunge" background (unless there's a reason for the blank background). Or maybe, for the "Blackwood" one, a dark and/or blurred sepia photo background could do something? Might be worth a try as it's easy enough to do quickly in AD. Also, the "social club" illustration might look better with a mix of fonts. Consider the rodeo examples here http://bobcoronato.com/prints-for-sale/where the artist has "gone nuts" but it works very well. I'm looking forward to seeing more stuff like this as it might give me some inspiration for my experiments.

Thanks Alfred. Seems like a reasonable option.

If we're being picky there are a few places where the shadows aren't as I would have expected but I don't think it really matters. It's a lovely bit of art that looks great. It casts a very large shadow over my own isometric work. (Not sure which emoji to use here. Is there one for "sorry about the bad pun"?)

While not trying to be too pedantic - and not wanting to step on the shoes of users more experienced than me - it's entirely possible to have isometric text that reduces in size over "distance", it just wouldn't reduce in size because of distance. Take the attached screenshot as a crude example. The front projection on the left shows the "normal" view while the isometric projection on the right shows that the text reduces in size both "going away" and "coming toward". In other words, if "thing A" is smaller than "thing B" then "thing A" will still be smaller than "thing B" when projected isometrically. I realise that this probably is me being a bit pedantic but I think it's something worth pointing out. I would suggest that what It123 wants is actually a perspective drawing - as mentioned by Alfred - rather than an isometric projection.

You're welcome. It's worth saying that the quick fix I gave was only applicable because the flower was on a white background. In most cases which concern a flower you would need to have some kind of background to the petals - as petals are not transparent - but the colour would need to be applicable to the subject. I.e. The background colour would need to be one of the colours on the petal. You would probably be best to do all of the painting on the pixel layer - as you have - to achieve a more realistic look as colouring the background layer might result in something that looks less natural (it creates a definite "harsh" edge to the petal which might not look right).

I was having a bit of a play around with this and realised that the image could be taken completely the other way round. Without the title it's difficult to know which way the woman is facing, in or out. So here's another pair of versions - off-shoots from the original idea really - that look at things from the other side. I'm not sure which one I prefer.

The stem shows through the flower because the flower has transparent (and semi-transparent) pixels. Try drawing a black-filled rectangle and putting it below the flower to see what I mean. How you can fix this really depends on what you're going to do with the flower. A quick fix - on this occasion - would be to apply a white fill to the flower "outline" layer but that won't work every time.

One small point on this: When/if AD gets end-of-line adornments - arrowheads etc. - will the user be in control of where the adornment is on the line relative to the end of the line? I only ask as I have used software where the adornment is always centred on the end of the line which means that - especially for arrowheads - the place the line finishes is not where the adornment finishes. The arrowhead continues after the end of the line and this means that you have to move the end of the line "back" to make sure the arrowhead doesn't "over-run". This isn't good when you are using a grid (or guide) to line things up nicely. For some adornments - circles, squares, etc. - this behaviour is fine but for arrowheads it isn't. Giving the user control over what happens will make it work better. The attached screenshot shows where the ends of the line snap to the green grid but the arrowheads extend beyond the line. Not an ideal situation.

Thanks for your feedback jer, it's much appreciated. I'll try and explain what I was thinking about when I created the cover while covering your suggestions. If anything, it might help people reading this to not make the same mistakes as me. The original idea for the cover was something that popped into my head so I thought I'd give it a try and see how it looked. Normally when something just pops into my head it turns out to be a terrible idea and doesn't really work "on paper" but this one looked reasonable so I thought I'd take it further. I originally chose the green colour because it looked "alien" and weird. I've no idea why I thought that would be good and so I changed it. I agree that the blue looks better because it looks more "foreboding". (I've used a global document colour so it's very easy to tweak as necessary.) I wasn't really happy with the title logotype on either version. The first version looked a little "flat" which is why I added the shadow (there's no outline, it just looks like there is) but I don't think it looks right either. The shadow was supposed to look like it was getting its light from the "doorway" but that would mean that the shadow should come in front of the text if the text is supposed to be "hanging" in front of the doorway. More work is needed on that one. Does anyone have any good suggestions? I also think I understand what you mean about the title font. My original idea was something quite different - I thought about making the text into some kind of maze that the "dark corridors" (see below) could be part of - but the thin lines looked quite good, sort of "whispering" the name of the movie. I'll need to think about that a bit more. I agree with you about the monster. Making it more "ephemeral" will be better. I tried various different things: tentacles coming in from all sides (didn't work very well, and why would there be tentacles in a corridor?); grasping hands (again, didn't work very well); menacing eyes (they would have to be looking out at the viewer and that doesn't make sense). In the end I used a bog-standard monster (actually a Godzilla outline that I made for something else) but I'm still not happy with it. I'm looking for something that gives the impression of "things lurking in the darkness" so the mystery, rather than the resolution (as you say), is what I want. I'd be happy to try various other things if anyone has specific suggestions. (I have only minimal artistic skills so it's got to be easy to do.) The woman in the first version seems to have just jumped off a vaulting horse (ta-da!) so I wasn't happy with that. How she looks in the second version is more like I wanted but she's still not right. My vague idea for the cover was someone who had just woken up in a strange, brightly lit, room they've never been in before. They have the option of staying where they are - and dealing with whatever comes - or leaving the room to brave whatever is in the darkness. She still doesn't look quite right for that. Again, some tweaking is necessary. Anyway, thanks again for your feedback. Its given me lots of things to think about so I'll have another look at this and try and come up with a third - hopefully better - version.

bleduc: Thanks for the info'. I've got various options but I'll certainly look into that one. R C-R: I don't think anyone has a problem with the wording on the website. It's perfectly clear - to me, at least - that the trial user has a specific amount of days to use the trial product before it becomes unusable. I don't think anyone is contesting that. What is being discussed is the length of the trial period. More specifically, that it seems a little short considering that most people have busy lives and might not have much spare time to trial a product properly. I had a look at the trial periods of some competitors to Affinity and here's what I found: * Adobe (Illustrator/Photoshop) - 7 days (used to be 30 days) - https://forums.adobe.com/message/9414964#9414964 * Quark (XPress) - 3 days (or 30 days on request) - http://www.quark.com/en/Products/QuarkXPress/Test_Drive.aspx * Corel (Draw/PhotoPaint) - 15 days - http://www.coreldraw.com/en/free-trials/?topNav=en * Avanquest (LogoMaker) - 10 days - http://support-uk.avanquest.com/en/support/solutions/articles/17000041579-how-to-activate-refocus-software-on-windows-and-mac-computer- Some of these companies really make it difficult to find out how long the trial lasts so "thumbs up" to Serif for making it absolutely clear from the start. While a normal trial period used to last 30 days (a while back), there doesn't seem to be a "standard" trial period length these days. The Serif period of 10 days is longer than some, and shorter than others. I guess all I am saying is that it would be nice if people got more time to try the software. If someone feels "cheated" by what they think is a short trial then they might be less likely to purchase. Nothing more than that. (For me, the point is moot; I tried it, I liked it, I bought it.)

Alfred: Thanks for the tips on using the forum. I think I've just got to take the time to get used to it (hence the delay - again - in my replying to your post). One day I'll get it sorted, fingers crossed. bleduc: I think you might be right about Gmail. I sometimes get notifications - from a different forum - a day or more after I've already read the post. I might try something different. R C-R: I wouldn't have thought that what Alfred suggested would be much of a change to what's already there. Compared to the amazing things that AD/AP can do, a bit of code to count hours/days used isn't exactly a taxing coding problem. I'm glad the developers are concentrating on the retail version but giving people more time on the trial version might bring in a few more customers. It's just a thought.

Here's another DVD cover experiment that I've been playing around with today (it's not for anything real, it's just for fun). First version is on the left, second version is on the right. Some notes on the changes for the second version: * some text has been added/removed/moved around; * the colour has been changed to something I thought was more "ephemeral"; * the effects on the logotype have been altered; * the monster is a bit nearer to the girl; * the girl has been changed to a figure that looks more "wary"; * some noise has been added to the darkness. What does anyone think? (I keep thinking it's missing something but every time I add something - another monster, some grasping hands, etc. - it looks worse.) Is there anything you would change? Are my font choices okay? Could the layout be better? What do you think of the colour choices? Is there anything you really hate? Is the anything you really like? Have I made any glaring mistakes? As usual, all constructive comments/suggestions/criticisms are welcome.

Very nice. I can't give you any constructive artistic advice because my artistic skills are way below your own so all I can say is that I like it. Looking forward to seeing more.

Robert, I'm still new to this myself so there may be a much better answer but - as far as I know - Affinity Designer only lets you create one page. However, you can create as many artboards as you want. You can think of the artboards as different pages if that makes things easier. Once you get used to using artboards they can be a very nice way of working without having to worry about pages. You create what you want in however many artboards you need and the concept of a "page" just sort of fades away. Some of the videos you can get to from the Affinity web site might be helpful.

Ah, if the scroll work is all one image then it would be tricky to change it. Not impossible, just awkward and probably not worth doing unless it was really necessary. Most people won't have noticed. As for the text, I'll try and explain myself a little better. Yes, I meant the (.)/full stop/period after the word "opposition". What I should have said is that I wasn't sure if the text needed a full stop as that text - which includes the full stop - was far enough away from the other text on the design that the full stop wasn't necessary, see below. Normally a full stop is used to show the end of a sentence - to make the text easier to read - but it's not always necessary. For instance, newspaper headlines usually don't need one because the text is visibly different to that of the rest of the text. You can tell where the end of the sentence is because the text is very different, e.g. different size/font/etc. The same reasoning can be used for text that is a good distance from all the other text. If some text - in this case "LIFE ATTRACTS OPPOSITION" - is far enough away from the other text then it doesn't really need a full stop because it's obvious that it's a sentence on its own. (The same way you haven't used a full stop after the book's title or author's name.) However, having said that, there is sometimes a good reason to use a full stop. Sometimes a full stop can be used for emphasis. A full stop on a "lone" sentence can be used as a kind of visual "boot stomp" or "fist on the table". It says things like "This is final!" or "I mean this!", without the need for an over-dramatic exclamation mark (!) which can look "tacky" on a book cover. You can think of it as similar to the loud chord at the end of a song that tells you the song is finished (I don't know what the proper term is for this). This short video has a good example: https://youtu.be/VQfgtUw4Vtc?list=PLWVWEaIMW0jN5_p5IrcbR2oRavvDm7r_Ewhere it's obvious when the music is finished (it's also a particularly impressive bit of video too). In this case, I'm not sure if "Life attracts opposition" needs a full stop. For me, the sentence doesn't seem "final" enough to need one. That's just my opinion though. Ignore me if you want to. There's also an issue with the use of a full stop in a "lone" sentence that is centred. Since the full stop takes up space but doesn't really add to the text itself it can mean that the text on the last line can look a little bit off-centre to the left. It's not a big problem here but it's something that's worth keeping in mind. The other thing I could mention is that the "LIFE ATTRACTS OPPOSITION" text looks to be a bit of an afterthought stuck over to the right. It seems to be poking its little head from around the smoke in a "please don't forget about me" type of gesture. It might be better if it is centred on the page - perhaps with a small black glow around it for readability - or you could balance the page by adding some text to the left-hand side of the cover. I just don't feel that it looks as good where it is as it could otherwise. I have seen plenty of examples where the text looks better off to the side but I just think that, in this case, it will look better centred (or balanced with some other text). I realise that what I've said above is probably over-analysing things way too far but it is sometimes good to think about the little stuff like this. Drilling down to this level can give you a fresh look at a design and can often give you insights into what might need to change to make the overall effect more powerful. On the other hand, you might not want to waste time on these sort of silly little details. If the illustration looks how you want it then that's fine and dandy. I hope bits of this have been interesting and/or useful but, basically, feel free to totally ignore everything I've just said. I often ignore - or forget - my own advice and there are no rules with this sort of thing. It's your cover and you should do it your way.

Nice. Looks very much like the sort of thing I can see on the shelves in book stores. I have a couple of very minor comments, if I may: 1. I'm not sure if there is a need for the full stop after OPPOSITION. It's purely a personal preference but I think it's far enough away from the rest of the text not to need one. Not a massive issue (or really an "issue" at all), but just thought I'd point it out. Also, I'm not sure that text should be over to the side but that's not my call and it might not look nice centred. 2. The thick lines on the left and right sides of the cover don't seem to line up with the scroll-work. The one on the right seems to be more to the right than the one on the left is to the left (if you know what I mean). Again, not a major problem but something that an on-the-ball art editor will notice. I'm interested in book cover design so I mention these things not to be awkward but only because they're the sort of things I'm learning to spot in my own work. Little details like these can make something seem less good than it is. I'm looking forward to seeing more in this series.

You're welcome. Glad to help. For AD, you can find a lot more of these "tricks" by going to Help -> Workspace -> More -> Expressions for field input.

Unless I've misunderstood your requirement you can already do this by over-typing, for example, 200% into either of the dimensions boxes in Document Setup. (Use whatever percentage you want.)

Note: See below for update on 1.7.2.471, it's still happening. Using AD 1.5.2.58 on Windows 10. Is this a feature that I just don't understand or is it a bug? If I have rounded corners on a shape and then reduce the DPI of the document, AD increases the rounding amount. Workflow to replicate: * Create new A4 300DPI document using points as the UOM. * Add a triangle (any size will do) - actual shape doesn't matter but a triangle shows the issue nicely. * Use the Corner Tool to give any (or every) corner a radius of 2pt. * De-select and use Document Setup to change the DPI down to 72. * Select the triangle. * Go to Corner Tool. The radius (wherever it was applied), in my case, has been changed from 2pt to 8.3pt. The 2pt value seems to have been increased by the same ratio between 72DPI and 300DPI, I.e. 300/72 = 4.16(recurring) and 2*4.16 = 8.3(recurring). Increasing the document DPI from 72 back to 300 returns the corner radius back to its original value. Have I just misunderstood how things work or is there something wrong? It just doesn't seem right to me. This forum post: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/12239-resizing-the-document-scales-the-radius-of-corners/?p=52905 seems to be about a similar thing but their use case is very different from my own.

Apologies for the delay in my reply. For some reason I'm not getting email notifications. (Probably something I've done wrong but everything looks right. Maybe the changes I've just made will make things better.) Many thanks for the feedback. I agree with you about the source material. The original cover designs for the books - before the total change in design - were much better in my opinion. I was messing around with some AD features and thought, hang on, this looks a bit like those covers, so I decided to go down that direction to see what I could do (I was still on the trial version of AD). For the book title I know what you mean but that's how the actual covers are made so it wouldn't have looked right if I'd done differently. I was trying to make it look like part of the series rather than trying to improve on things. Having said that, I think you're right though. Ha. I see what you mean about the mouse! Oops. My "concept" (if I can call it that) was for: * the three arcs on the left to be the "three fallen empires" (lying dead on the floor in a heap); * the two "hooks" to be some kind of stylised helmets-with-cloaks butting up against each other (the "two opposing forces"); * the whatever-it-is on the right to be the "one hidden enemy" (at the back of one of the forces). I guess it's not much of a concept if it leaves people wondering what the heck it's about. As for the shapes, I was just playing around with the brush functions and seeing what they could do. What I got was pretty much what I wanted but that doesn't mean it was what I should have been trying for (if you know what I mean). Anyway, thanks again for the feedback. It's great to hear from people like yourself who know more about this kind of thing than I do, and it's always good to learn new things. Cheers.