GarryP

Yeah, careless wording made in haste I’m afraid. I’ve added a note to my earlier post to point people in a better direction.

Even if you can’t find the rotation handle you can usually rotate a layer by moving the mouse pointer a little bit to the outside of a corner handle where the pointer will change to a little curved double-arrow icon and then dragging. In Designer you also have the Point Transform Tool which with which you can rotate layers.

I’m not entirely sure what you are asking about but you can: select specific pixels with one or more of the selection tools; then copy those pixels from one document to another via the Copy/Paste functionality; and then you can move the pasted pixels with the Move Tool. There is no way that I know of to paste the selected pixels directly into a specific position in the target document.

Note: This is only correct up to a point but I can’t be bothered to re-write it as I’d only be repeating what’s in some later posts. See those later posts for better explanations. Unless I’m misinterpreting what’s happening in the video, you can’t add noise to a Pixel Layer in the way you are trying to do it. The Noise setting in the Colour Panel only affects Fill/Stroke colours and not pixel layers. If you want to add noise to a pixel Layer then one option is to use the Add Noise Live Filter.

There could be a number of reasons but we can only guess at the specifics in this case until we have more information. Would you be able to show us more of the design so we can get an idea of how it has been constructed? A full-screen screenshot where we can see the right-hand black-filled layer selected in the Layers Panel might help. If you can share the AFDESIGN document – maybe a copy with just those black-filled layers – we should be able to help more quickly.

I think it’s worth mentioning that increasing a value by a certain percentage is not the same as increasing a value to that same percentage. For example: increasing x by 200% would give you 3*x [ x+(2*x) = 3*x ], whereas; increasing x to 200% would give you 2*x [ x*2=2*x ]. So, with a width of 50, using w+200% in the Transform Panel (or anywhere else that allows calculations) would give you a new width of 150; But, with a width of 50, using w*200% would give you a new width of 100. This might sound trivial but it can make a big difference that could cause problems later in the life of the document if you don’t notice a mistake early.

...and please make sure that, in the video, if you supply one, we can see both your Context Toolbar and Layers Panel where, at least, the “larger shape” can be seen in the Layers Panel and it is expanded if it has child layers. We need to see the Context Toolbar to see your Move Tool options and we need to see the Layers Panel to see how your layers are arranged. Note: When saying that <something> is “inside” <something else> it is often more useful to state whether: the <something> is a child layer of the <something else>, or; the extents of the <something> do not go beyond the extents of the <something else>. That’s two ways of saying that something is “inside” something else and they have different meanings. I’ve tried to replicate the problem in all of the ways I can think of at the moment but cannot get it to happen for me. Also, if you tell us which OS you are using, and what type of input device you are using, that might help with problem diagnosis.

You’re welcome. Hopefully someone will come along and show us how to do it – if it’s not in the design of the software there’s sometimes a ‘trick’ that can be used.

Thanks for the file. I can see what you mean now – even with the “64 Round Brush” from the “Basic” Category, the edges always seem to have some kind of ‘smudging’ or blending/transparency. I tried adding a new Pixel Layer, setting the Antialiasing for that layer to “Force Off” and trying again with the Source set to “Current Layer & Below”, but the same effect is there, although to a lesser extent. I tried different Blend Options for the new Pixel Layer but can’t seem to get anything much better. I also tried making my own brush from a rectangle of black pixels, just to see what happened, and still get the same thing. I don’t know what to try next – there’s a chance that the Clone Tool simply wasn’t designed to do ‘entirely whole pixel cloning’ like this if it was created for photo touch-up where an amount of ‘smudge’/blend is normally wanted.

Welcome to the forums @Sirax Your document units (UOM) is set to Millimetres. Changing it to Pixels shows that your layers are not aligned to the pixel grid and have non-integer positions and sizes. Because of that there will be problems with overlaps and ‘underlaps’ where the software has to 'invent'' extra pixels to cope with the 'fractional pixels'. If you want perfect pixel alignments the best thing to start with is having integer pixel values for all the X, Y, W and H values of all of your layers.

I was hoping that would be the quick answer, it often is. Would you be able to supply the document you are using?

Generally, you should only be part of the beta test programme to purposely test things. The beta is not there for ‘early access’ to new functionalities, it’s there for us to help Serif test the software and find bugs. The whole point of using the beta is to find bugs and report them to Serif; that’s what the ‘workflow’ of using the beta is supposed to be: Test; Find Bug; Report Bug; repeat... If you’re not using the beta for testing then you’re probably using it for the wrong purpose. Remember, some changes to the beta software might not make it through to the next commercial release. In these cases you may find that some of your files which were modified with the beta could be incompatible with future releases of the software and therefore you might not be able to open them ever again.

Have you tried turning Wet Edges OFF on the Context Bar? That option, I your screenshot, is ‘hidden’, at the right-hand side – just press the ‘double arrow’ button to get more options.

You can paint onto the Pixel Layers with a colour, instead of a grey, if that’s what you mean. I only used a grey because I didn’t realise that coloured shading was necessary. However, you might need to use a different Blend Mode, but I don’t really understand your requirements enough to say if you will or which mode will be best. I don’t need to do this sort of thing very much so you might get a better solution from someone else.

Welcome to the forums @sgoetz If you search the forums for transfer settings you will get lots of advice. If none of the advice in those threads works then you can tell us what you tried, and what didn’t work, and someone can probably help you from there. If you are trying a procedure in a specific thread, and have a problem with it, then it might be better to post your question in that thread to get further advice on that particular procedure.

Welcome to the forums @SK89 I haven’t watched the whole video but I think what you are trying to do is something like that in my attached video. The video is recorded in Designer’s Pixel mode but the same thing can be achieved in Photo, or Publisher’s Photo Persona. Important: At one point, when I am dragging the Pixel Layer over the face, I show that the layer can be dragged over different areas of the original layer in the Layers Panel to do different things. Make sure you drag the layer over the name of the original layer and not the thumbnail (in this case). I’ve used one of the Basic brushes but you can experiment with different ones to get different effects. You can paint with different shades of grey to get the different shades or use multiple pixel layers, as I have, or both, but that’s up to you. The more layers you have, the more control you will have over the shading. Note: I’ve just done it very quickly and crudely, you will need to take much more care to do it nicely. There are probably better ways to do what you want, and I’ve probably not covered everything in the video, so other people may add more techniques, and if there’s something specific that you want to do then you will need to tell us the time-code on the video where it happens. 2024-01-22 09-35-53.mp4

It would be a shame for so much work to be ‘spoilt’ by a few little textual errors so I thought it might be best to bring them to your attention. Looking forward to seeing what comes next.

Once a problem has been given a tracking tag, the little A?-XXXX) tag beside the thread name, then it’s been logged in Serif’s bug/suggestion tracking system and waiting to be prioritised before (potentially) being worked on: In these cases, there’s no need to add ‘bumping’ posts as it’s already something that they know about and hope to get round to when possible. Adding further useful information probably won’t hurt but simply ‘bumping’ won’t do anything to help, and may actually hurt your cause:

@nomi02118 Just some extra little ‘nit-picks’, all in the cause of getting it right before printing: sometimes you use .xx (without the leading zero) but one time you use 0.xx (with a leading zero); mostly there is a space before the dash in the 'date range' but in “500- 25” there isn’t one; The names of “Homo Gautengensis” and “Home Antecessor” aren’t lined up with the other names on the right-hand side (or visa versa). The kerning of the title looks a bit ‘off’ to me (e.g. too much space between U and M, etc.), but that could just be me. Great poster by the way, I just think it could be tweaked a little to make it even better.

@jmsjms As mentioned above, in V1 and V2 of Photo, while using the Crop Tool, holding the Ctrl key before dragging gives you quick access to the Straighten functionality (the mouse pointer changes to a ‘spirit level’ icon). This is slightly different in some V2 versions where holding the Ctrl key before dragging a handle will give you a different result, which is the one you are looking for. If you are trying to follow V2 tutorials while using V1 you might come up against some problems where functionality has been added or changed in V2. There are sometimes ways to do the same thing differently in the different versions but, in this case, there is no analogue that I know of. When asking questions or reporting problems it will be better if you tell us, at the start, which version of the software you are using as that can help us to give you the right advice more quickly.

It does but I think, from what I can see in the screenshots, the pixels that make up the white edges of the pointer are so small on high resolutions screens that it’s not easy to see them. If you zoom into the first screenshot you can see some feint white/grey lines and those lines are more ‘pronounced’ on lower resolution screens - see image below. I’m not sure if Serif can do much about this or whether it’s an OS-settings-thing.

Welcome to the forums @PuheOU I think part or the problem you are having is that the mouse cursor ‘scales’ with the screen resolution. In other words, it is the same number of pixels in size no matter what the resolution of the screen and, therefore, on higher resolution screens it can be more difficult to see because it’s ‘smaller’. (It’s easy to see on an HD screen.) Can you suggest a good way to make it “more visible” on higher resolution screens while it not being obtrusive on lower resolution screens? (Keep in mind that a user could be using multiple monitors with different resolutions at the same time.)

In the older V1 versions on Windows, pre 1.8 or something like that, there used to be a radio button (or maybe a check box) where you could tell the software whether you wanted the file to be embedded or linked but I haven’t seen it for a while (it's never been in V2 as far as I know) and am fairly sure that it was deliberately removed for a reason that was stated in the forums but which I can no longer remember. (I could try to be more vague but... something... mumble... what did I come in here for...) It looks like the documentation could be playing catch-up with the software development in this case.

That functionality seems to be working fine for me in Photo 2.3.1 on Windows. I’ve tried a few different scenarios but it works each time. Would you be able to attach a video recording of it not working so we can see what's happening?

Welcome to the forums @FranciscoMejia In Publisher V1, on Windows, in the Publisher Persona, after ticking “Create plane set”, the Isometric Panel does not appear but it does appear when doing the same in the Designer Persona. And this is also what happens in V2. It appears that there was a difference between the Windows and macOS V1 versions but I’m not sure what the expected behaviour is for V2.