Alan9940

Thanks, I will try that...so much to learn!

Yeah, OK, I think of those "menus" as dropdown lists. No matter...a HUGE thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I can't tell ya how many times I looked at that list under the Document icon and never saw Flatten. Just tried it and it works like a charm! Thank you, again, for the help.

@carl123
That's for the desktop version...there are no menus in the iPad version.

Looks like export presets are only available on AP desktop.

Yeah, OK, I think of those "menus" as dropdown lists. No matter...a HUGE thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I can't tell ya how many times I looked at that list under the Document icon and never saw Flatten. Just tried it and it works like a charm! Thank you, again, for the help.

I had this same problem recently when working with assets (clouds) from a recently purchased collection. The solution for me was to uncheck OpenCL on the Performance tab in Preferences. Give this a try, if you have OpenCL enabled.

Wow, thank you Walt! Something about the way you said it made me realize I was trying to drag the work thing. I just did the drag & drop with a single macro from one category to another. Just a little slow with these things...I blame aging!  Thank you all for your patience and help.

Duh...didn't have the Dropbox app installed and logged in. After doing that, the "Locations" button magically appeared! I downloaded the file and it opened in AP as it should. Thanks!!
 
But, that doesn't explain why the file doesn't show up on my iCloud Drive page. If I'm logged into my Apple ID (which I am), shouldn't the AP app see the file?
 
Update: I finally figured it out. For some reason--no clue why--I had to go into the Settings app, turn off iCloud, then turn it back on. Boom! Files now show up on the AP iCloud Drive page. Thanks, again, for all your help and suggestions.

Fantastic! That's exactly the Help I was looking for. Thank you, again, Alfred.

Hmm...not that this is any help and FWIW...
 
I have my working space in AP set to aRGB and I don't use ProPhotoRGB, but 99% of my RAW digital image files from a few different RAW file formats are converted in standalone RAW converters  and tagged with a custom color space built specifically for digital cameras. I have compared the view as opened in AP against PhotoLine (my primary editor on Mac) and against the view in a few different RAW converters and I haven't seen any odd and/or over-saturated colors. Oh, and I regularly calibrate my monitor.
 
Best regards,
AlanH

Hmm...not that this is any help and FWIW...
 
I have my working space in AP set to aRGB and I don't use ProPhotoRGB, but 99% of my RAW digital image files from a few different RAW file formats are converted in standalone RAW converters  and tagged with a custom color space built specifically for digital cameras. I have compared the view as opened in AP against PhotoLine (my primary editor on Mac) and against the view in a few different RAW converters and I haven't seen any odd and/or over-saturated colors. Oh, and I regularly calibrate my monitor.
 
Best regards,
AlanH

Hello Andy,
 
My vote would certainly be for the following functions: Merge Down, Merge Visible, and Flatten All Layers. Thanks for your consideration regarding adding a Flatten command, too.
 
Best regards,
AlanH

Everybody has different needs, of course. Why would I want to flatten layers while continuing to edit? Because when starting with a 120MB (or more) background layer, and then adding several adjustment layers along with a few pixel-based layers mushrooms my filesize to 1/2 - 3/4GB. Continuing an edit session at those file sizes really takes a toll on performance with my system. Therefore, when I notice things are getting slow I flatten all current layers and continue working. Certainly not a non-destructive workflow, but sometimes ya just gotta do what ya gotta do. :)
 
Best regards,
AlanH

Hi Matt,
 
My mistake...I misread the original post and thought catlover was experiencing the exponential file growth issue that I've had for quite some time with Pixelmator. Not that Serif staff cares about other software, but if I open a TIFF file at 126.9MB, do absolutely nothing to it, and then save as PXM native file format the filesize expands to a whopping 299.7MB! So glad to see that AP doesn't do this; I tested it! :)

@csp
 
A professional level RIP such as ImagePrint, for example, can provide better print quality because the software assumes control of the printer and is not going through the manufacture supplied driver. Custom profiles are tailored to the software. Therefore, we're looking at a closed system whereby the software and paper profiles work in a synergistic relationship to control dithering, ink load, transitions, etc. Also, in the case of ImagePrint you get a series of profiles for any given substrate based on display conditions; specifically the type of light the print will be viewed under.
 
IMO any one-off custom paper profile is only as good as the person making it; and I've seen quite a few bad ones! The patch target can have a tremendous affect on profile quality, depending on how many patches are read. For example, my Xrite ColorMunki builds a fairly decent profile based on a small number of patches, but it certainly doesn't compare to the more refined profile generated off nearly 1K patches.
 
Regardless, if you don't see any difference between a professional level RIP vs the standard printer driver in the prints you typically make, then stick with what you're doing. No harm done. But, don't categorically dismiss those that wish to push the envelope striving to obtain the best prints possible! In the past, I participated in a small group of photographers where we mixed our own B&W inks using all sorts of combinations--dyes, pigments, carbon--trying to get output that sang for us. This was waaaay before the days of ABW in the Epson driver! :) But, we wanted to get the absolute best (and archival) print that we could. It was great fun and I learned a LOT about printing!
 
Best regards,
Alan

@csp
 
A professional level RIP such as ImagePrint, for example, can provide better print quality because the software assumes control of the printer and is not going through the manufacture supplied driver. Custom profiles are tailored to the software. Therefore, we're looking at a closed system whereby the software and paper profiles work in a synergistic relationship to control dithering, ink load, transitions, etc. Also, in the case of ImagePrint you get a series of profiles for any given substrate based on display conditions; specifically the type of light the print will be viewed under.
 
IMO any one-off custom paper profile is only as good as the person making it; and I've seen quite a few bad ones! The patch target can have a tremendous affect on profile quality, depending on how many patches are read. For example, my Xrite ColorMunki builds a fairly decent profile based on a small number of patches, but it certainly doesn't compare to the more refined profile generated off nearly 1K patches.
 
Regardless, if you don't see any difference between a professional level RIP vs the standard printer driver in the prints you typically make, then stick with what you're doing. No harm done. But, don't categorically dismiss those that wish to push the envelope striving to obtain the best prints possible! In the past, I participated in a small group of photographers where we mixed our own B&W inks using all sorts of combinations--dyes, pigments, carbon--trying to get output that sang for us. This was waaaay before the days of ABW in the Epson driver! :) But, we wanted to get the absolute best (and archival) print that we could. It was great fun and I learned a LOT about printing!
 
Best regards,
Alan

Hello lilloph3,
 
As Bill said, Welcome to the Forum!
 
The Develop Persona (aka the raw converter) in AP is still much a "work in progress." I'm sure changes will be made before the final shipping product. Therefore, I wouldn't judge or compare it to any other product until AP is done.
 
Just my 2 cents added...
 
Best regards,
AlanH

@MEB
 
OK, perhaps "don't seem concerned..." was a poor choice of words. That said, though, I install and play around with each and every new beta as released, and it seems that minor enhancements and other fixes are completed while major things like the AP printing interface continue along unchanged. Serif staff has already stated previously on this issue that "You simply present the OS with something to print...What's wrong with that...The Designer folks complained about this, too, but they got used to it."
 
IMO, if AP doesn't address the entire printing interface before final release (making it more like every other image editor out there) you will lose many potential customers. I cannot imagine a single digital photographer that wouldn't complain if the printing interface remains as is.
 
Thank you for allowing me to express my 2 cents worth...
 
Best regards,
AlanH

@MEB
 
OK, perhaps "don't seem concerned..." was a poor choice of words. That said, though, I install and play around with each and every new beta as released, and it seems that minor enhancements and other fixes are completed while major things like the AP printing interface continue along unchanged. Serif staff has already stated previously on this issue that "You simply present the OS with something to print...What's wrong with that...The Designer folks complained about this, too, but they got used to it."
 
IMO, if AP doesn't address the entire printing interface before final release (making it more like every other image editor out there) you will lose many potential customers. I cannot imagine a single digital photographer that wouldn't complain if the printing interface remains as is.
 
Thank you for allowing me to express my 2 cents worth...
 
Best regards,
AlanH

I'm not sitting in front of my Mac at the moment to try this, but couldn't use also change the blending mode to "color" on that new painting layer and, thereby, not affect the underlying luminosity values as you painted with a colored brush?
 
Best regards,
AlanH 

The lack of a Page Setup dialog has been noted and discussed in other threads; not that it shouldn't be mentioned again, and AGAIN! It's totally beyond any normal thinking why AP is missing this dialog. A Page Setup menu item has been around since my early desktop publishing days with PageMaker on an Apple II, and has been included in literally every image editing program I've used since 2000!
 
it's my understanding that this MIA dialog was discussed back when AD came out; therefore, it seems Serif has a long history of not including menu items we all might deem standard. Apparently, they feel that your output criteria is to be determined at the start of the editing process and that all users simply default every parameter for their printing! Um, NOT!! Anyway, I'd guess that Page Setup is not something we'll ever see. It's not a deal breaker for me, but IMO it is going to limit some of their potential user base.
 
Best regards,
AlanH

Currently, there is no way in AP that I'm aware of to simply change file resolution--I'm thinking similar functionality to PS Image>Image Size dialog where I can change the Resolution box under Document Size with Resample Image unchecked. I have written about this issue in another post as it relates to printing and I hope it's addressed before the final shipping product.
 
Best regards,
AlanH

Hello Andy,
 
I have no idea how folks work with Designer or what their needs are for output, but please allow me to explain how I believe most photographers (certainly this photographer) work with images intended for web presentation or paper output.
 
1) Some way to modify the pixel density without interpolation of the image is necessary; for example, AP's Document>Resize Document dialog should allow me to change from 300 PPI to 240 PPI without actually resampling the image. I know that I can get acceptable prints using anything from 240 - 360 PPI and if I sent a 300 PPI file to AP and want my print to be  slightly larger, than I know I can change it to 240 PPI and still get good quality. Currently, there is no way that I know of to make this change in AP.
 
2) There should be a basic Page Setup dialog that allows me to specify paper size and orientation (landscape/portrait.)
 
3) I'm really not sure what's going on with this last issue... Normally, when working with an image editor such as PS if I send a small image (say, 5x7) to the printer driver whereby I've specified an 8.5 x 11 paper size, the image is centered by default because a checkbox is set to center the image. However, I can uncheck that box and move the image anywhere I need it on the page. Many folks print greeting cards exactly this way; the image is moved where needed allowing the paper to be folded in half. Currently, since I have no way to specify paper size I can't tell if the driver is simply not responding as expected, since my image appears in the driver as if I am printing borderless.
 
To be honest and to speak frankly, with all the thought I've seen put into the development of AP I'm shocked that printing from the application is not more flushed out! Many, many photographers print their images and, as AP stands today, another application will be needed for printing. IMO that's really bad and will reflect poorly on the great product that I anticipate AP becoming when it's released.
 
I cannot begin to express how strongly I feel about the lack of printing facility in this application. I really hope others on this board agree and campaign hard to get this resolved.
 
Thank you for allowing me to express my opinions.
 
Best regards,
AlanH

Everybody has different needs, of course. Why would I want to flatten layers while continuing to edit? Because when starting with a 120MB (or more) background layer, and then adding several adjustment layers along with a few pixel-based layers mushrooms my filesize to 1/2 - 3/4GB. Continuing an edit session at those file sizes really takes a toll on performance with my system. Therefore, when I notice things are getting slow I flatten all current layers and continue working. Certainly not a non-destructive workflow, but sometimes ya just gotta do what ya gotta do. :)
 
Best regards,
AlanH

Hello Matt,
 
Thanks for your reply.
 
So, it sounds like AP will honor the embedded color profile and display accordingly...that's is exactly the way I'd expect it to work. That said, however, I think it would be very helpful if AP prompted the user when there is a profile mismatch between the file and the set working space. That way, there's no guesswork involved vis-a-vis whats going on before you begin an editing session. I'm happy to hear that you're considering this option!
 
As for my working space mysteriously setting itself back to sRGB...I think I know what happened...user error. :) When I updated to beta 2 it didn't occur to me that my selected working space might revert back to default. It really shouldn't do that should it?
 
Best regards,
AlanH