MikeFromMesa

Apparently the difference is 5 MB. :D Well, it seemed funny to me, at least ... The real question in my mind is why the exported file is so much larger than the original. Compression does seem like the most logical answer, but then AP should offer both compressed and uncompressed output. Doubling the size of a jpg has quite an impact, especially when one is storing hundreds or thousands of jpgs on a disk.

Bill, You are quite right. However I think that the question has to do with why an unadjusted jpg at 100% is larger than the original, and by a considerable amount. You would expect that as the quality decreases, so does the size. Here are some figures for that single jpg from my wife's point-and-shoot, all saved at 100% with different resampling types although, considering that the size is not being changed, I am not sure why the resampling type has any bearing. Input image size - 7.3 MB Export, 100%, Nearest Neighbor - 14.1 MB Export, 100%, Bicubic - 14.MB Export, 100%, Bilinear - 14.1 MB Export, 100%, Lanczos Separable - 14.1 MB Export, 100%, Lanczos Non-Separable - 19.1 MB While the sizes are all very surprising to me the last is the biggest surprise. Since there output dimensions are not being changed I do not really understand why there is any resampling going on, but clearly there must be given that non-separable is 50% bigger than separable. I guess the developers use the same routines regardless of whether or not there is any size change going one and that addresses a question in another thread about resampling when there is no size difference. As for myself, this does not really make any difference. I may send a jpg from a workflow tool to AP, edit it and save it back (at apparently a much larger size), but that image is then reprocessed by the workflow tool to write the output (generally at about 70-75% quality) for computer viewing. What I need to do now is see how the workflow tools handle both the original raw image and the processed jpg from AP, and how the final output sizes compare. Nobody here probably cares about that, but I am curious. FOR THE CURIOUS: Using Dxo Optics Pro and reprocessing all of the saved jpgs to jpgs, at 100%, the files are even larger. The original jpg ends up at 17.8 MB, all of the other jpgs end up at 17.9 MB except for the non-separable, which ends up at 19.1 MB. While this is interesting I have also tried starting with a raw image, sending a jpg from OP to AP, saving it unchanged and then processing both the raw and jpg to jpg using OP. No difference in size, so, while I find this business with AP resizing the jpgs very interesting it does not seem as though it has any real impact on my processing except for eating up some disc space while I am doing my processing. I am going to do this all over again with CaptureOne with the understanding that "Anything worth doing is worth over-doing" :lol: Or "Nothing obfuscates like statistics".

I can verify that this is a problem. I loaded an unadjusted jpg taken by my wife using her Nikon AW110 (point and shoot). The original image was 7.3 MB and I loaded this into AP, made no adjustments and exported it at 100%. The resulting image was larger than 14 MB. Here is a link to the original image: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d7dogdpni7o91l5/DSCN5119.JPG?dl=0

What are you saying here? That these are the two plugins that already work with AP? Or that these are the two plugins that you will know have to work with AP? It sounds like the former but that is not true. I have some Topaz plugins and Clarity causes a crash every time it runs and ReMask will not even launch.

What, exactly, are you doing that is making it crash? Loading a raw image? Loading a non-raw image? Editing a loaded image? If so, what edit tools? Exporting an image? Calling a plugin? Perhaps we can help if we know what you are doing, what might be happening right before the crash and so on.

Well, best of luck to you folks. Hang in there. Hope things get better soon.

I can not speak to the subject in general but I can say the following: 1) I would have no problem copying the specified plugins to a specific location if that would solve the problem the AP developers have with the file locations and I assume others would do so also, 2) The target location for the plugins is pretty much well know, at least for the most popular plugins. Topaz copies it plugins into /Library/Application Support/Topaz Labs and Applications/Topaz Labs and, as a target for Adobe products, into the Applications/Adobe/... locations. I assume they can be used from any of those locations and the Topaz plugins that I have that do work can be referenced from their Photoshop CC plugins location or their /Library locations, 3) I still have photoLine on my system and it runs every plugin that I have added to it on my system so their location should not be an issue. I have added the plugin location from /Library and from /Applications to photoLine and the plugins just work. The same is true for Athentech's PerfectlyClear. I added it to photoLine and it just works, so they will run properly with apps other than Photoshop and Elements. I am not saying I want to use photoLine rather than Affinity Photo. I do not. But it seems clear to me that these plugins can work properly with a pixel editor other than Photoshop or Elements. I am sure that if the photoLine developers can make it work, then so can the AP developers. They have done everything else so very well. For all I know there may be hidden issues in getting the plugins to work but if they will run properly with photoLine I do not see why they can not run with Affinity Photo. One other comment. Months ago I suggested that the AP developers add the ability to run external applications from within AP, not just plugins. If they would do that much of this issue would go away because the Topaz plugins (and many others) can be also run as external apps or using external apps (like photoFXlab) and then the plugin would be either no problem or a much less pressing problem because an alternate method of running them would be available. I am not complaining about AP. I think it is a great pixel editor and I am very happy with it, but it will never become a truly universally accepted pixel editor on par with Photoshop without the ability to run plugins and so this is important to me because I want to continue being able to use Affinity Photo for the foreseeable future. I really like it and want it to be the best it can be and to become very, very popular and that will require the ability to run plugins so they do not crash.

It may change the luminance selection but that does not mean that it ruins it. Changing it is the essence of what I was trying to do.

I do not disagree as I have Topaz plugins (not all, but some) and also want them to work properly. However you can get Topaz's photoFXlab app/plugin and this does work with AP. In fact, once photoFXlab has opened you can then run all of the Topaz plugins from that platform and they all work properly. For example AP will not even run ReMask 4 but, when I open photoFXlab from AP and then run ReMask 4 it runs perfectly. I am not suggesting this as a long term solution. AP needs to get the plugin functionality working properly, but this will serve as a temporary work-around and I use it that way when I call the plugins that do not work.

The idea is to be able to control how much of an image is selected in a luminosity mask. All luminosity masks work basically the same way with the brighter parts of the image selected and the darker parts less so, but not all luminosity masks of any specific image are identical. For example the luminosity masks created by Photoshop, PerfectPhoto Suite and Affinity Photo for the same image may be (and often are) quite different. I posted the different luminosity masks for one of my images on another thread and I found, at least for that image, that I felt that the amount of the image selected as part of the mask was greater than I would have liked and much less than in the other editors. I am not one of those who think that AP should be a clone of PS (or any other pixel editor) and so should produce identical results. AP is its own product and one I very much like, but I wanted to know if there was any way to control how much of an image was selected in a luminosity mask or, alternately, was there any way to control the selection that is used to create the luminosity mask. If so, sometimes I might increase it and sometimes decrease it prior to using the mask for adjustments. I am not sure why the kind of adjustments I might want to make is important since it would change from image to image, but often it would be a brightness adjustment, or perhaps a vibrance adjustment, or perhaps a contrast adjustment, or perhaps hue adjustment or perhaps something else. Or perhaps a combination of several different types of adjustments. However I do not see how a Curves adjustment will have any affect on a luminosity mask. What I have found is that Billtils suggestion of the Refine dialog in AP does give me some control over the selection made by the Cmd-Shift-Click luminosity selection and hence on the LM created. Thank you for the link to the Kupyer actions but, since they don't work in AP, they are of no help other than in understanding the background of how they are used in PS. While I still have CS 5.1 they might be of some help but, since buying AP, I have not used PS and do not expect to do so in the future.

I thought all of that was past and that things were back to normal since the agreement between the EU and Greece has been ratified by the Greek Parliament. Is that not the case? If not, then I guess all of those people on the Adobe Photography Program are really in trouble because they cannot send their monthly payments to Adobe. Wow! Never thought about that when reading about the problems between the Greek government and the EU.

Ah. It never occurred to me that he did not see the Add (and Subtract) buttons.

If you want to eliminate the background it seems fairly simple. First, select your two images. If that selection does not include the gap between you (and it should not), then just invert the selection and you will have the entire background selected. You can invert by using Select -> Invert Pixel Selection. If I have misunderstood what you are trying to do please let me know. And, by the way, that is a very nice photo.

I guess I don't quite know what you are saying. Both Perspective and Warp and currently functional in AP. When you refer to "Perspective Warp" do you mean Perspective adjustment? Or Warp adjustment? Or something different from either?

Thank you for this post as I did not know this was built in to Yosemite. Renaming has often been an issue for me so this will prevent me from having to sit down with Xcode and write a small app myself.

I am one of those people who use AP as an external editor for my workflow tool. I have used it with Lightroom but my preferred workflow tool is Dxo Optics Pro (although I have also used CaptureOne). But AP is still my Photoshop replacement for an external editor and I am very happy with it. It has allowed me to drop out of the Photography program (and to stop paying monthly) and there is very little functionality that I have given up to be able to do that. I have lost the Automation functionality in PS, but expect much of that to be restored when Serif adds the Macro Persona back to the package sometime soon) and some of the plugin functionality (but expect that to be restored when the AP developers finish polishing the plugin stuff). For me, even though it is not my main editor, AP has been more than good enough for me to say goodbye to Adobe.

I am reasonably sure that the plugin manufacturers probably think the other way - that the pixel editor developers need to conform to their plugin interface. When I spoke with the Athentech (PerfectlyClear plugin) developers (during a support request) that was their response to me.

I have said as much in my post. However you seem to be missing the rest that I mentioned in that post. Consider. I have an input image that is 1500 x 1000. The statement that the image is 1500 x 1000 is really two pieces of information. First, that the image is 1.5MP in size and the second is that the ratio of the sides is 3:2. 1) If I wish to export this image as 1500 x 1000 there is no size and no ratio change so there is no resampling (as you have said and as I have agreed with). 2) If you wish to export this image as 3000 x 2000 there is a size change, but no ratio change. This requires resampling. 3) If you wish to export this image as 3000 x 1500 there is a change in both size and ratio. This requires resampling also. My whole point is that the lock in the dialog box is a lock on the ratio of the sides, not on the size itself. You can do exports (1) and (2) with the lock in the "locked" position. You can only do export (3) with the lock in the "unlocked" position. The ratio is different from the size. So all that I was (and am) trying to point out is that resampling may still be used when the lock is "locked" as in export (2) above. Ratio and size are different. You can change the size with the lock in the "locked" position (as I do frequently) and that requires resampling.

Last night's build? Any idea when that stuff might become available as customer betas? The stuff we have in the release is great but new stuff is also good ...

I have also seen this sort of thing from time to time, but the problem is that there is no way to be sure exactly where the problem lies. Perhaps the psd format saved by AP is not "quite" right. Or perhaps the 3rd party apps are expecting some format that is also not "quite" right. Or perhaps it is a combination of both. Several times (prior to the official launch of AP) I had to open files in either Elements or CS 5.1 and re-save them to get the file to open properly in a 3rd party app. Some times it worked, some times it did not. I just don't know how the developers can determine if the problem is in AP or the 3rd party apps.

You really have several choices in dealing with the Export dialog box. 1) If you plan to leave the dimensions of the exported image the same and locked, then I agree. There is no need for resampling. , 2) If you plan to leave the ratio of the dimensions locked, but change the output size, then there is a need for resampling. 3) If you plan to change the ratio of the dimensions, then regardless of the output size there will be a need for resampling. As I said earlier, the lock refers not to the output size but to the ratio of the image sides. You can resize the output with the ratio locked or with it unlocked. Either will require resampling.

csp: I guess I need to ask you to be a bit more specific because what I tried did not work. There is no "channel menu" on the UI so I assume you mean that I should open the channel panel (View -> Studio -> Channels) and select the alpha channel. But there are two alpha channels listed in the Channels Panel - Composite Alpha and Background Alpha. Which one do you mean? Or are you referring to something else? You then say that I can adjust the density of the mask Curves. Are you referring to the Curves levels adjustment? Or something else? And do I first have to make a mask of the luminosity selection? Doing the Cmd-Shift-Click only generates a selection and not a mask. Do I have to convert that to a mask first? I am sorry to be so ignorant about your post but perhaps you could list the set of steps so I can reproduce what you are doing. Thank you.

Have you also added the Plugin Support Folder entry in that same dialog box (second set of entries in the windows)?

No, I am not sure. I have used the PTLens plugin, but that was some time ago before I started working with the Affinity Photo beta and, since I did not buy it, I have never tried it with AP. It did a great job with the software I used (Elements and photoLine), but it was only a trial and expired after 10 uses. I have since removed it from my system so I can not try it now with AP. However you can download the trial and try it yourself. Remember, there is a PTLens app and a PTLens plugin and AP will require the plugin since it does not support external apps. I would certainly try it with AP before I bought it just to be sure. AP is still a bit rough around the edges when it comes to plugin support although they say that they expect a plugin support update soon. I know that PTLens works very, very well in adjusting images as I have compared the adjustments with that done by Lightroom and Optics Pro and it is just as good. I just don't know if it works with AP properly as of this last release.

Perhaps I am missing something here but I do not understand this comment. The lock you are referring to on the export page controls the ratio of the sides, not the dimensions. Thus, if the image is 4:3, then the lock will keep the output at 4:3 but allow the user to change the absolute size of the exported image. Given that, it seems to me the question of resampling is vital. Or am I missing something that you are trying to say here?