Butler To Cats

New full versions are posted over in the News and Information area. Affinity Designer 1.5.2 for Windows (the vector/design program) is available - the beta is on 1.5.3 Affinity Photo for Windows (the image processing program) is still on 1.5.1 - the beta is on 1.5.2

Hi wesking Sorry, your screenshot has not attached. Can you link to an image somewhere? Does it only happen with a particular file? If you opened a .jpeg file and accidentally deleted the background Pixel layer (which would show as an empty Layers panel), then saved it (still as the same .jpeg file, using File Save or Ctrl/Cmmd+S) and closed it, that is similar to opening a Word file, deleting all the text, and saving and closing (I almost managed that once with the help of a cat walking on the keyboard). I just tried it, you cannot recover the deleted Pixel layer after this process (especially once you have closed the .jpeg file). Do you still have an unedited copy of the original jpeg file? If you still have the edited file open, you might be able to recover the Pixel layer as MEB suggested, by using enough Undo (Ctrl+Z on Windows, Cmmd+Z on a Mac) or the History feature (an advanced undo manager, using a slider instead of constantly hammering Ctrl/Cmmd+Z and/or Ctrl/Cmmd+Y), possibly sliding right back to the start of the slider. If you enable the saved history feature (File menu, Save History With Document) then saved as an .afdesign or .afphoto format (rather than just re-saving the file as .jpeg), you can still Undo even after closing and re-opening the .af(something) file. It is possible to close or move (including off-screen) some of those panels - View menu, Studio, Reset Studio will put them all back in their standard positions.

Yes, sorry, I typically want to re-colour the line art itself AND colour the space (basically, cartoon/comic work from line art). Oh, hang on, your reply to Alfred says you can use that for some cases. Good-oh. Mask Below or drag creates a small 'm' masking layer, which is still a Pixel layer: if a pixel is transparent in the masking layer, it will be transparent in the masked layer, so you can use paint or an eraser to define/edit the mask. Think "frisket" (liquid or cutout shapes) - the mask transparency indicates where you can paint, or not. Rasterise to Mask creates a big 'M' Mask layer, a different type of layer like an alpha adjustment layer: white is opaque, black is transparent. You can also (this might seem more like your Photoshop thinking): 1) Shift+Ctrl+click (is it Cmmd rather than Ctrl on a Mac?) on the thumbnail of the line art layer (creates a selection based on luminosity), 2) then Select menu, Invert Pixel Selection (since you want the non-luminous line art to be the selected area), 3) then paint over the line art using that selection, or (if you want to keep and/or edit the mask) 1) Shift+Ctrl+click (is it Cmmd rather than Ctrl on a Mac?) on the thumbnail of the line art layer (creates a selection based on luminosity), 2) then Select menu, Invert Pixel Selection (since you want the non-luminous line art to be the selected area), 3) click the Mask Layer button under the layer panel to turn the selection into a (big 'M') Mask layer only for this layer. 4) Ctrl+D (Cmmd+D) or Select menu, Deselect to turn off the selection (since you now have a Mask, you don't need a selection) and 5) click the line art thumbnail so you are painting on the line art, not the Mask. You can right-click the Mask thumbnail and Edit Mask to view and edit the Mask using black/white/grey, or normal single-click the Mask thumbnail to edit the Mask while viewing the line art.

A simple alternative: Open your scanned image, add a layer adjustment, select Curves, select the Blue channel only, make the blue curve a simple horizontal line across the top at the highest value. A vaguely similar technique to your Photoshop technique: 1. Duplicate the layer (copy and paste). 2. Invert the uppermost layer (layer adjustments) and merge the adjustment layer. You should now have an inverted version of your line art (white on black) as a layer above your line art (black on white). 3. With the top (inverted) layer selected: Layer menu, Rasterise to Mask. 4. Select the lowermost layer and paint or fill. 5. You can group these two layers so the mask does not affect any other layers, or alternatively drag the uppermost Mask layer down onto the Pixel line art layer.

Hi Gabriel Mac version 1.0 (well, the first beta, anyway) of Affinity Photo was released in February 2015. Windows version was released November 2016, and both platforms were brought up to version 1.5 (using the same core code). So far, we (as users) are looking forward to the 1.6 release (along the lines of "it will be released when it's ready"). I suspect there is no official release date planned yet for v1.7, let alone v2, so I don't think there can be an official answer for you.

As R C-R stated, no GUI framework is used, so definitely not Qt5. Core code with custom interface code for each platform. In this post, TonyB reveals that C++ is mainly used, but the Mac front end is written in Objective C. Not a professional programmer myself, but I assume this gives Serif more control and flexibility with their tool choices and code, rather than being locked into a specific tool-chain or framework. I assume it also limits bug-hunting to their own code and the OS-specific tools, rather than potentially including third-party GUI framework bugs.

@helmuthdu: Thank you for these! They were very handy recently rather than using individual SVG elements for maintaining consistency with existing material using Font Awesome elements. @amigatheone: SCORM standards, by my understanding, are intended to provide guidelines on pathways and sequencing, and technological consistency for re-use and interaction of eLearning resources, rather than providing standards for the UI/UX world in general, and the only design elements refer to data models, not UI/UX. Moreover, while the ADL repository does provide 3D models for those who prefer skeuomorphic ("realistic") design, the SCORM users guide for instructional designers does not mandate the use of 3D, and in fact specifically states that it "does not dictate the formatting or look and feel of screens and the elements on them" (p.17) and "SCORM does not dictate any particular design methodology or design pattern" (p.27). I suspect that for many people flat design looks both "cleaner" and more modern than visual skeuomorphism ("realism") after its widespread use in Mac, Windows, and Google design elements from 2013/2014 onwards, overtaking the visual skeuomorphism of earlier design elements (although not necessarily replacing layout derived from real objects), particularly with the introduction of subtle elements such as gradients and highlights in Flat (Design) 2.0. My prediction is that in time we'll see wider adoption of the Flat 2.0/Material Design approach, using mainly flat design elements enlivened with gradients, highlights, some textures, and shadows, along with use of images and videos as elements. Affinity Designer is well-placed to take advantage of this trend if it continues. I particularly like the use of vector-based flat design elements via SVG for appropriate scaling to various devices and output, an area where 3D rendered elements often perform badly or at least simplistically (e.g. you have 4 different icon sizes, pick one for this device). [insert your own pun about 3D design "falling flat"] Still, it is good that different opinions and design preferences exist; the world would be a duller and sadder place if everyone and everything followed the same model.

Hi toten, I find that if I choose the Final Cut Pro export option then it preserves object, layer, and group names when imported into Moho. Note to readers (I'm fairly sure you know this, toten): the layer type identifiers (Group, Ellipse, Curve, etc) are not default names, you have to manually assign actual names.

Just a random thought: Perhaps, like the OS-specific sub-forums in the bugs forum, two application-specific sub-forums could be added to the Questions & Feedback forum? This might allow cross-application or uncertain discussions in the main forum and application-specific discussion in the sub-forums, and would not cause any great incentive to split the existing forum or threads.

Thank you! Works well for me in Firefox, but would not run properly in Chrome (on Windows), would not load the .json file, apparently due to Chrome's strict implementation of the Same-Origin Policy for files opened directly from the hard disk (prevents some malware situations but also prevents some legitimate uses such as your keyboard visualiser). This thread discusses the issue, possible workarounds, and potential security problems for some of those workarounds: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3102819/disable-same-origin-policy-in-chrome Edit: corrected would not load jQuery library to would not load .json file

Thank you for generously sharing these!

(1) v_kyr posted an image with an arrow indicating the Layer panel (click on the thumbnail to see it in full size) in Affinity Designer - if you haven't changed the layout of your software, look in Affinity Photo in the same location - as you imply, it is one of the sub-panels in the Studio area on the right of your image, with the tab above it labelled "Layers". Sounds like we might all be talking about the same thing but using different words, which is always frustrating. (2) If you right-click on the circle (in either the Layers panel or on the canvas) and choose Rasterise, it becomes a Pixel layer (it is now static pixel/raster "paint", no longer a vector Ellipse shape/layer with modifier handles) and becomes erasable. In AP, you cannot erase from the circle while it is still a vector shape. I'll agree with everyone else, getting a good understanding of layers is the key to proper use of many modern graphics techniques.

Maybe try PNG rather than JPEG? Personally, I find JPEG works well for what it was designed for, photographic images, but PNG often works better for digital art. I notice the other example that you linked has a plain colour background, instead of the radial gradient you are using. These types of subtle smooth gradients are one area where JPEG is often less successful.

I believe the beta has been superseded by the 1.5.5 final release - a final release is another reason for the beta to become obsolete.

Also for future readers: I agree with Edge that the industry practice of labelling crash recovery files as autosave is misleading, although sadly common in a variety of software. I suspect it represents programmer thinking, not user thinking. As somebody who has worked systems support and has written software, please DO ALWAYS MANUALLY SAVE works in progress, even if the software has an "autosave" feature. It's the difference between leaving incomplete work on the floor and hoping the cleaner (the operating system, or sometimes the software itself) does not think they are junk temporary files (relying on autosave and autorecovery) and putting your partly completed work in a drawer so you can continue working on it tomorrow (manually saving and re-opening named files). Personally, I teach people to manually save multiple versions of their files at either regular intervals (file001, file002, file003) or at various stages of work (e.g. for artwork it might be after pencilling, inking, colouring, composition, shading). This is the result of various bitter experiences with important files being lost or rendered useless by save corruption and other factors (e.g. 3 days work lost when the only version of a file got corrupted in a power outage), late design changes, etc. Professionals who work in large teams might have experienced this through a version control system, but it is also worth doing on an individual level for one-man projects. Disk space and a few seconds of time is worth a lot less than your sanity and reputation.

An analysis and suggestion (tongue firmly in cheek): A single app, cross-platform license for a single Adobe product is now approximately US$20 per month, or $480 for 2 years. Affinity Designer was released in 2015, and we're still on the 1.x series, and might have more 1.x releases to go. So, if Serif charges $400 (or, if the 1.x series continues for another year, maybe $500 or $600) for a "cross-platform license" for either Designer or Photo, it is still well under the Adobe cost. For those people who desperately need a cross-platform license and the platform issue, not cost, is apparently stopping them from simply ordering two separate platform licences, Serif can charge this full multi-platform price and send them a Windows license and a created MAS account with voucher credit for the Mac version. The remaining cost will cover the administrative needs to create the MAS account and maintain a "cross-platform license" database for future upgrades. Users get a single "cross-platform license", Serif gets adequately compensated, and it still costs less than an equivalent subscription. Hmm, there may even be scope for a third-party vendor to maintain the "cross-platform licensing". What do people think? I refer non-English speakers again to "tongue in cheek".

Alternatively, rather than transparency, change the gradient end colour in the mask to black instead of grey

You might need to edit the transparency on the end node of your gradient mask (assuming you are using a gradient mask for transparency). The default gradient end is not 100% transparent. Image credit: Polymanu - pixabay

If you want to export only the artwork part of your page/document, without any extra around it, there's an option in the Export dialog. This gives you a PDF limited to your (selected) artwork area only (I guess you could call it a cropped PDF). This works well in Affinity Designer (I have not yet tried it in Affinity Photo).

Worth remembering that the Plus line went on for a couple of decades up to about version 18 (X8), give or take (X9 for PagePlus, and and the occasional version number jump/skip to keep the whole suite in line), and the change to Affinity was a planned one, not because the company failed or sold out to a competitor who squashed the product or pillaged some of its features. Serif intentionally decided to restart from the ground up rather than continuing to add features to an old development base, so they could have a better base software design/workflow and improved implementation more in line with modern hardware and operating systems, and (as SrPx said) attractive to professional users as well as amateurs. (While remaining inexpensive and even more usable so as to still be attractive to amateurs like myself.) As far as I can see, this has re-invigorated the user base, and the future looks bright! My personal opinions, worth what you paid for them, no refunds, no connection with Serif (except as a customer), etc, etc.

Yes, that sounds about right, although I suspect that it's often more convenient for multi-layer discrete "chunks". Good for throwing together similar documents for different audiences/clients out of a bank of document pieces. I suspect the bulkiness is often a result of feature creep - need to keep adding features to not look like abandonware, until you end up with something like the ground controls for a space mission. Unless a company is willing to take the bold step of redesigning from the ground up, like Serif did with Affinity, or to use some sort of simple-base-plus-optional-plugins architecture, their software might just keep getting bigger and potentially clumsier.

Ah, yes, now that you say that I can see what you mean.

If you put your icon inside a group, then make the group a symbol, you should be able to add and delete content in the group and it will stay duplicated as a symbol in multiple places. If the object (icon or whatever) itself is a symbol, I'm not sure - ah, as I experiment, yes, possibly. It seems symbols are a themselves a group-like wrapper around the item. Expand one of the Symbol layers - it acts as a group. Try adding your new icon into the Symbol "group", then delete the old one. Hopefully all the symbols update to match. Try it on a separate or duplicate file before trying it on a production file.

A little similar (but not identical) are Affinity's embedded documents, perhaps? Create a document in Affinity Photo or Designer, and save it. Create a new document, use File menu, Place to load the other file as an embedded document. Now the embedded object acts as a single object/layer, you can apply effects, etc. To edit the embedded document, either double-click the layer content on the canvas or select the object in the layer list or on the canvas and then click the Edit Document above the canvas. When you finish editing the embedded document and close it, changes will appear back in the "enclosing" document. I don't think you can do it with a PDF at the moment, only Affinity files. Depending on your needs, you might be able to keep your original in Affinity format and generate PDFs as needed.

Not my area (or platform) of expertise, but try this: Under the Document tab, Colour tab, try changing the Colour Profile to sRGB (and/or maybe to your specific hardware, if listed).