Roger C

I cannot explain the odd empty selection.
However, when you modified the document setup you had the choice of keeping objects the same relative size and same placement on the image (Rescale option), or of keeping them the same absolute size (Anchor to Page).
Edit: To put it another way, your objects have a size, determined by their dimension in pixels when you create them. If you change the pixel density, then your choices are to maintain the same appearance (comparing with the overall document) by changing the number of pixels using Rescale, or of keeping the exact same number of pixels using Anchor to Page.

Hello lovely people, this is a public service announcement.
 
Affinity : 30% off everything till July 25th. That's software and workbooks!
Just a heads up to others like myself who don't receive promo emails and may have been unaware of this.
 
R
P.S. Now I have the matching set.
 

Ahhh, thanks, that's the workflow I was looking for. It can be done by Channels, just not directly by right click and finding this in a pop up menu. Thanks for help!
I want to do this if I decide to apply the exactly same mask in a later point in time not only to the initial adjustment layer but also to other ones.
 

All that you need to do is duplicate the layer, and apply whatever effect you want to the (upper) duplicate - blurring, embossing, etc. Select both layers and run the macro. Frequency separation generates the LP and HP layers in proper order setting linear light, and the high pass macro simply replaces the blurred (or otherwise) layer with the HP layer, blend set to normal.
Custom.afmacros

I feel stupid now, but that was it. It got me confused for good though - maybe it should be set to Automatic by default?
Anyway, thanks for the fast reply!

From what I've seen as a user, Affinity Photo is not intended to be a clone of Photoshop, nor to work identically. I think your choices are to either continue using Photoshop if you want an identical workflow, or to learn new ways of doing things in order to work with Affinity Photo. Sorry.

Yes, thanks @Dan C
Super helpful selection of suggestions when you could have been otherwise engaged.
 
 

Hi DesignMeister!
We have an official tutorial on our halftone filter in Affinity Photo;
I've also found a third party Affinity Designer tutorial which is informative
And a further post on our forums showing ways of creating dot matrix patterns in Affinity Photo without using the filter layer:
 

No problem at all!
I know the feeling
I've watched the video and I believe the easiest way to recreate this is to create a gradient filled shape in Photo and then apply a Halftone filter to it. Although there aren't as many settings in Affinity than Pixelmator for the filter, I've created the below which is what I believe you're looking for:
 

When The Camera's Switched Off...
 
But...but...this is a photo, isn't it?

Don't believe everything that Hollywood tells you. I have it from good authority that these two guys get on like a house on fire; the first chance they get, out comes the piano and before you know it - it's an all out rendition of "Nessun Dorma." And if you thought the Italian language was difficult to understand. . .just you wait till you hear this mother sing.
Put that in your dreadlocks and smoke it!

Can't you just resize your 1800 x 1200 px document to 5400 x 3600 px and the masks will resize accordingly
Then replace your image in that document
Don't have the time/inclination to test this but it is what I would try first

It appears like I can transform (scale up/down) a mask after clicking on the mask while the move tool is selected, and then I can scale it up and down accordingly, just like changing the size of a pic or an element on the page. The downside is that it looks like I can only select a single mask at a time, but it's a start. I'll experiment a little further with it, but it may be a solution that is semi-usable for now. 

I believe here is the answer.
Best regards!

Amidst the international controversy - questions in Parliament, frequent mentions on Fox News, and a delightful article in Quilting Weekly - regarding the precise timing of the up-coming release of a certain piece of software, the BBC has announced that they will - some day soon - be airing a special episode of their flagship science documentary series.
Expect glossy CGI, mildly sarcastic narration by David Mitchell, and something from either Jim Al-Khalili or Mark Miodownik (probably).
Dum... dim, dum, de da da dum,,,
P.S. This is just a silly bit of (attempted) humour. I'm happy to wait patiently.
 

Of course it does not affect neither the workflow or the quality. But the purpose of compression is to save space, not to increase it. 
For 16bits images LZW compression is not only useless but it produces files that are larger than uncompressed ones. And that's the point.
Having the choice to use it or not is a key feature, and I guess, not so difficult to implement.
A better choice would be to offer a ZIP compression with several degrees of compression (the best method to lossless compress 16bits files), but it is probably a more difficult feature to add.
Regarding the fact that it affects a few people, since it is not clearly displayed in Affinity Photo, the only way to see that a LZW compression is actually applied to all the files saved in TIFF, is to check the properties of the files. Not many do that, indeed. It took myself months to notice it. Not a reason to consider that it's not important. 
And, as a reminder, Affinity Photo is, to my knowledge, the only software not to have the choice of TIFF compression. 
Fx

FxRphoto
This is a really useful discovery!
Thanks, R
 

Hoping someone can shed some light on an apparent issue with Soft Proofing in Affinity Photo, but first a little background; I am looking to switch from Adobe products and Affinity Photo will be taking over the role Photoshop has played so far in my workflow, and so far so good.
 
Then recently I was contacted by a client that wishes to purchase a print of one of my photos. This is the first time I am making a large size print for a client so I am doing this via a gallery print lab (I have done printing on my home printer before so I know the basics of Soft Proofing, however it’s a home printer Epson XP-235 so no ICC profiles for that consumer model). So I though this is the perfect time to test out the soft proofing in Affinity Photo.
 
However I am getting very strange, and what I assume are incorrect results out of Affinity Photo.
 
The colour space required by the lab is sRGB and a TIF file with a DPI of 300 which will be printed on Hahnemüehle Photo Rag and are soft proofing using the ICC profile for the given paper and printer at the gallery, so far so good or so I thought.
 
What first got me thinking something was off was when I changed rendering intent, in Affinity Photo and there was little to no difference between any of the intents and huge amount of out of gamut colour.
 
So I went back to Lightroom and sure enough in Lightroom there was far from the same amount of clipping using the same ICC profile and rending intent. Hence I opened the file in Photoshop and here results were the same as Lightroom’s rendering intents (relative and perceptual), while Absolute matches what I see in Affinity Photo.
 
I would have assumed since I use the same file with the same colour space and the same ICC profile on the same computer the results should be the same, unless one software is interpreting colours and the ICC profile differently which in that case begs the question;
which is closest to the truth?
Or is this a bug in Affinity Photo’s soft proof adjustment layer?
(And yes I know that soft proof will never match the true to life print, however I like to get an as close to the print rendition as possible, but I now have a very hard time trustingt what I am seeing in Affinity Photo).
Pictures speak louder than words, so here is a chart detailing the results I am seeing and as you can see it's a huge difference.

Hope someone can answer this or if I am missing something in the workflow.
Software versions:
Affinity Photo: 1.6.7
Photoshop: CC 19.1.5
Lightroom: 6.14 standalone
Thanks.

FxRphoto
This is a really useful discovery!
Thanks, R
 

I guess so
 
Exactly. I use a group just for the purpose of the gradient since it is the only way to apply several adjustment to the same fill layer.
The only thing to keep in mind is that, with this method, everything that is copied will be pasted when the macro is runned, even the background layer. So, be sure not to copy it before creating the macro. Otherwise, the same background used to create your macro will always be pasted when you use that macro. (obvious, but it worth remind it)
Fx
 

Hi everybody,
I just found a trick with non recordable features. 
I wanted to create a macro that sets a group of adjustment layers and a fill layer with a gradient to emulate an adjustable neutral density gradient filter. But when I tried to record the macro, I realized that the gradient tool couldn't be recorded (the position of the fill layer was also difficult to set). I created this set without recording and copied the group. Then I recorded the macro with a simple clear selection and paste. 
I tried this macro several time and it always creates the whole gradient set, even if I copy something else, or close the app, or shut down the computer. I tried with several macros created with the same process and they seems to work fine for now and it helps a lot.
It is not very academic and I don't know if it's a correct way to bypass the limitations of the macro feature but maybe it is worth to have a look at it and see if there is issues with that method.
Regards
Fx

inderdaad catlover. Het is fijn om zoveel steun te krijgen van de fantastische Affinity gemeenschap.

Problem solved, Thank you so much, I opened a new window but this time using CYMK and I don't see more colors missing on the color wheel, I Appreciate a lot your help, Affinity Team & members Rocks !!

Hi,
In the Pantone swatches panel, I've already set the list to "large(!)" but it's much easier and more efficient to evaluate and select colors with a significantly larger swatch display.   How do i enlarge the Pantone swatch display to, say, screen size? I do this every day in Quark. FWIW, my vision is fine.
thanks,
David

Hi pudobof,
Welcome to the forums  
Unfortunately you're correct in saying this feature is not implemented in Affinity, however it is a rather nice tool in Lightroom. I'll have this thread moved to feature requests for our devs to consider!