toltec

Why is the View Tool (the hand) called Liquify Hand Tool in the Liquify Persona and the View Tool everywhere else. Windows AP A hidden feature? Just curious.

Well, if it has handles already, ,it is a "smooth node" and the handles are part of the whole node/control handle object, so no. However, if you want to turn a smooth node into a node without handles, a "cusp node", Alt - Clicking on it converts it. i.e. removes the handles from the node. It might well change the shape though. You can drag the line either side of the node without affecting the line at the other side of the node. If you look at the status bar at the very bottom of the window, if gives you information about what the node is and what the modifier keys do as you "hover".

True. I was just trying to make a point about the number of clicks. I can also imagine in most cases wanting to actually do something with the greyscale layer before converting/rasterizing so your method would be better in almost every case.

In fact my original calculation of three clicks was grossly overestimated. Sorry AP Right click on the channel you want Select Create Mask Layer That's it, done. That is precisely half the number of clicks needed in PS. If you want to get it there permanently in the Alpha (no mask layer) just merge in down. That might take a couple more clicks :D

Doesn't even need to do all that in his case if he right clicks on the channel he wants and selects "Create Mask Layer" I don't see how a macro would help. You have to click on the layer first then it's only one click.

Me four. I didn't even consider using the Rasterize to Mask option for an already rasterized layer, so found an alternative bodge, Now, had it been a vector image I wanted to make into a mask by rasterizing it. According to the help files RasterizingShape, Line, and Text layers can be rasterized to create raster layers. This "flattening" operation can be performed manually or automatically (when applying filters or retouch brushes). According to an Affinity help search Rasterization is only a requirement if the appearance of complex vector gradients or effects need to be honoured, particularly for print artwork. Rasterize to Mask Somewhat less. Just saying :)

Why not copy everything onto one layer. Fill the background with white, select all your design elements and fill with white, make the lines black (any thickness you like) and print. Your design is still there, untouched, simply hide the "print" layer. I just tried that (Xara Designer) but any program with layers will do it and it took me 20 seconds. It would take Serif a lot longer to program that in and it would not always work. i.e. Do all your design elements have an outline or a suitable colour? An outline of a thin yellow line would not be visible on a poster! The print layer way is very fast and flexible.

Do you mean the pen tool? It looks like a fountain pen with a gold nib and is no 5 from the bottom although the node tool is also there (little white triangle thing) and that might be in focus (on top). It is just above the shape tool. Shortcut is "P". Press P a couple of times and you will see them swapping place.

Ha! In Affinity Photo 1 Right click on the channel you want 2 Click on create mask layer 3 Drag that to the layer below In Photoshop 1 Click on the channel you want 2 Ctrl C 3 Click on the Alpha 4 Ctrl V And how do you Ctrl C and Ctrl V ? add two more (right) clicks to bring up the menu, move your left hand to click (press) the modifier keys both times (I make that 6 clicks) or go all the way up to the edit menu? Not only is Affinity photo less clicks, you can do it all within a small focused area and it is totally non destructive. That's er, :unsure: 17.8% more productive ? Actually, with practice it should be almost twice as fast which is 62% ;) Anyone come up with less clicks ?

I am not 100% sure what you mean without seeing it but You could select something and put it on a layer first before using the perspective tool on just that, You could use the Mesh Warp tool. You can draw nodes and move just one small area. So yes you can.

Nik ones seem to work fine, mostly. Can't speak for the others I don't seem to be able to put in youtube links but search for this Installing Nik Plugins Affinity Photo At least it shows you how.

Yes, it is a feature I'd like to see, if only because it would help the migration of us long term PS users. Using channels is quite common. I have come across a few others too, some like this I have found a workaround, some not. I must admit, I had to do one quick image for someone a few days back and reverted to Photoshop. I feel so ashamed :( I once created a 9 channel file for tee shirt printing. If you do have to do a lot, go for the one click macro!

Still three clicks but if after "Erase paper" you use "erase" in the greyscale layers blending mode, you can adjust opacity to vary the effect.

Well, that included adjustments to the grey channel. I assumed you wanted to edit it, like channel masking. Right click, greyscale layer, colours - erase paper, mask to below Thats just three clicks, how is that much worse than PS? How long does it take you to make one click? There are other ways but I think they all involve 3 clicks, sorry. And as MBd says, you could make a macro, then it's only one click! If I find a way with two clicks I'll let you know. Sure AP is not as good as PS at some things but it's better at others and costs a fraction of the price.

Several ways, depending on what you want it for but this might do it. I have found several ways to do a similar thing but i'm still learning. Right click on the appropriate Channel of the Pixel Layer Channel (not composite), called background? Create greyscale layer. Select the grey layer, adjust contrast, levels etc etc. Filter - Colours - Erase White Paper. Right click on the grey layer and select Mask to Below. You might have to invert it first? Voila, a mask on the Alpha. Not 2 seconds but under 30 seconds.

Let us know, won't you.

I wish people would forget about inches. i.e DPI (dots, per inch) unless they are printing. Printers use dots and an inch is always an inch. Displays use pixels and an inch is not an inch (at least not when you put the word inch side by side with pixel). How many inches does a 1920 X 1080 pixel image occupy on a 50 plasma TV compared to a 2540 X 1440 pixel phone? And thats only a 2K phone! If you want your image to fully occupy a typical monitor or HDTV at 1920 x 1080 pixels use an image 1920 x 1080 pixels. Make sure you are not over compressing the JPEG file. This is set to be 960 pixels wide. I exported it at 85% compression straight from Affinity photo as a JPEG and the file size is 126 kb. It should occupy half the width of your 1920 x 1080 device! With instagram, you could make it a bit bigger, i.e. 1080 or Instagram will simply reduce it to 1080 wide. I did this at 960 to see if it is half the width of ANY device you view it on. As long as the browser is set to 100%. It's only a stock photo and has been compressed, changed and compressed again, so not ideal.

There are two little vertical bars to the left of the tabs of each group of panels. Looks like the pause button of a VCR. If you click on that you can drag that group of panels off. You can "reassemble" the three groups and drag the bunch in one go by dragging the top one (pause). However, you seem to be working back to front. Put the main Affinity window complete with tools on one monitor, undock just the picture by dragging on the top (its tab) and just move that. No?

I'm not 100% sure that this is what you mean but does the "Reverse curve" on the context toolbar not do what you want?

I got my bank statement this morning and I can assure you "less is less".

Yeah, that does make a big difference. Out of curiosity I tried that in Photo and it didn't work for either for Z, Y or X. :rolleyes:

Wow. That's very impressive.

That's odd :wacko:. I have done that sort of subtracting a lot, is the shape not a vector ? Still, your ERASE method is well worth knowing.

Select both layers Layer - Geometry - Subtract

Well, I don't have that many fingers. OK, I might have been guilty of trying to oversimplify things :wacko: