Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Subclavius

  1. Hello martinch and Old Bruce, If it's of interest, I posted this method in the tutorials section of the forum: It was tested on a 1.7.0 beta but it appears to work in current production 1.7.2. Any comments would be appreciated. Nigel
  2. AP 10 64 bit I think this is a bug but am not 100% sure - feel free to close if it's by design. It seems that a black and white conversion within in a group only has a local effect on pixel layers within that group. Have included 3 pics: a b+w conversion outside the group (works ok), b+w conversion within the group (no effect), and b+w combined with a local pixel layer (non-transparent) within the group (works ok). This may look like an odd thing to do but it arose as I was trying out 2 different b+w conversion options on the same pic. It seemed to make sense to use 2 groups rather make multiple copies of the original image. Any comments? By the way, thank you for all your hard work on releasing version 1.7. Nigel
  3. I very much second the idea of an import facility for legacy PagePlus files. I can understand the pressure to get AP out there but I can't help feeling that Serif has let down its legacy users of PagePlus here in not supplying it. I have seen it suggested that export -> import can be achieved by means of a pdf but I find that wholly inadequate. The elements of the page (e.g. a table) are lost as functional elements and only the 'picture' content appears. Short of a turnaround from Serif it means starting again from scratch. Nigel
  4. Subclavius

    [By Design] Black+White conversion

    Hello Walt, Thank you but I feel this misses the point. Yes, groups restrict the operation of layers to within that group so that only that group is affected. My point is that the b+w conversion layer fails to operate at all because it cannot 'see' the underlying background pixel layer without the presence of an unnecessary local pixel layer within the group. Nigel
  5. Hello All, I'm posting this in response to the following thread: I was also searching for a method of inputting (x,y) number pairs into Affinity Photo to make a compensating curve for digitial negatives for alternative processes. It looks to be possible by using a 1D LUT (Look Up Table). The enormous advantage of a LUT is that the file (typically with .cube extension) is manually readable and editable. I've put some details and screenshots below as 'proof of concept' (it means I haven't tested it in practice!). Pic 1 shows the original image (test 2 bw [original]) - it is a greyscale image Pic 2 shows a typical alternative process curve made up with a curves adjustment but not yet applied (test 2 bw [typical alt process curve]) Pic 3 shows the above curve applied to the image (test 2 bw [alt process curve applied]) Pic 4 shows a 1D LUT created from the curve in pic 2 applied to the image (test 2 bw [alt process curve via LUT]). To generate the LUT data I printed the adjustment curve on paper and measured it! Notes on method: Note that this method ONLY works with the current beta version ( I have tried it in the current production version but the LUT implementation is flawed and it does not work! There are minor differences in the histogram between pics 3 and 4, probably due to the sampled nature of the LUT with its linear segments (and also measurement accuracy!). The method utilises a 1D LUT - pretty much what they were designed for (although the idea was for video implementation). However 3D LUTs also exist and if you export an LUT from AP then it will generate one of these. Notes on LUTs: An LUT relies on having equally spaced points along the x-axis. This is a MUST. If you have made non-equally spaced density samples, it will not work or you will have to interpolate. An LUT can have arbitrarily many data points. In this example there are 78 so that the important information in the rapidly changing areas of the curve is captured although it means that the curve is over-specified in the linear segment. The format is self explanatory (see example). Comment lines begin with a # character. Here is the link to the Adobe LUT specification for those who want to delve further. There is no specification for the x-axis data points. They are assumed to be equally spaced. The numbers supplied are for the y-axis data points and there are 3 of them (in the given range 0.0 to 1.0) one each for RGB. It is important that the RGB numbers are identical otherwise you will get a coloured output. I have used 5 decimal places here but it's arbitrary. I've attached below the sample LUT that I made up - the numbers were created in an Excel spreadsheet. Feel free to adapt it. I would be interested in any comments. Nigel LUT test 2 bw.cube
  6. I have posted an article on how to set up curves manually in the Tutorials forum: It uses a LUT and requires some manual editing to set up but it isn't rocket science. Nigel
  7. Subclavius

    AP Closes randomly

    I get this behaviour too. It happens having edited a picture when I click the top right 'x' to close. AP asks to save to when I click 'yes' and then AP itself closes. If I save the edit first (File>Save) and then close the picture by clicking 'x' it does not happen. It's very annoying as I constantly need to reopen AP. Nigel
  8. Just one item for me: In the curves adjustment box add the ability to specify the points being added (x%, y%) to the curve just like blend options. This would be immensely helpful for creating digital negatives for alternative processe (e.g. platinum printing) Nigel
  9. Subclavius

    AP redraw issue

    Hi Chris B Thanks for the update. I shall bear it mind when editing. Nigel
  10. Subclavius

    AP redraw issue

    Affinity Photo 10 64 bit Am having problems with AF redraw after simple changes e.g. adjusting a curve (consistent with certain files) or making a layer invisible and then visible (intermittent, again only with certain files). I have attached 2 pics - the first shows the setup before and the second shows what happens when the curve in question is adjusted. The only (simple) way to get back to a picture again is to click on the visibility icon of the composite channel to force a redraw. With the selected file (and another that I have) the fault is reproducible but it doesn't occur for all files. The only consistency I can find with files that cause the fault is that they are large 16bit greyscale file with 2 groups. I haven't got this to happen - so far - with only 1 group. I don't know if this is the same fault as thread 78221 (strange redraw issues). Any help would be appreciated. I can upload the file if required. Nigel [Edited to correct title]
  11. Subclavius

    AP redraw issue

    File has now been uploaded ... fingers crossed (that you can reproduce the fault) Nigel
  12. Affinity Photo 10 Am trying to load a large TIFF file from the scanner. It is a 16 bit file with dimensions 12163x15348 (see pic from Windows). However, when loaded (apparently without error) into Affinity Photo the file size is drastically reduced to 1090x1375 (see pic from AP). (1) This file loads correctly into Lightroom (2) A smaller version of the TIFF file (4561x5756), also 16 bit, loads correctly into AP. Any help would be much appreciated. Nigel
  13. Hi BillCrum, You should check out the latest beta release (currently to see if you can reproduce your problem - I know that you've said it's a different problem but the beta release contains the latest updates. I can now load large files of 16bits greyscale correctly and the loading is a lot faster now. Nigel
  14. Affinity Photo 10 64 bit This looks on the face of it like a bug but am not sure. A photo (pixel base layer) and a single curves adjustment in LAB mode working in 16 bit - if the AOpponent and BOpponent curves are set down to nothing i.e. desaturating the image, AF should according to me, produce a black and white image representing only the luminance. However I get a monotone image in some shade of blue. It doesn't matter whether the document format is RGB or LAB, I get the same result. Incidentally the behaviour is exactly the same in beta release Is this a bug? Any advice about what is going on would be appreciated. Nigel
  15. Hello Gabe, Thank you for the reply. I had already looked at the video tutorial but didn't find it really helpful in the context of this query. Your reply did however enable me to work out how to get a black and white image though. It seems that the 'meaning' of the axes changes from RGB to LAB. In RGB mode the vertical axis is dark to light whereas in LAB mode the vertical axis is blue to yellow or green to magenta. Thus in LAB mode the neutral point of the axis is not at the bottom (as in RGB mode) but half way up. If both the AOpponent and BOpponent curves are set to horizontal lines half way up (removing all colour information) the result is indeed a black and white image representing only Luminance. Clearly when both curves are set to horizontal lines at the bottom of the graph the resultant colour is thus blue+green -> cyan I would find it very helpful if the vertical axis could be coloured with a graded line from blue to yellow or green to magenta. Similarly on the RGB a graded line from dark to light would help. It's only a small wish in a great sea though! Thank you, Nigel
  16. I was thinking earlier of just the absolute basics but of course a fully featured SmartCurves would be fantastic. This is partially referenced in thread 76455: where the ability to save and load presets is requested. That would be so handy for alternative processes ...
  17. Hello, I would also like to see this feature implemented for precisely the reasons that mrenters described in the initial post. In the Blend Options panel of a layer it's possible to put in a large number of points and specify the input/output values for each one. It doesn't seem, on the face of it, to be be very difficult to implement this idea for the curves adjustment as well. Please, someone in the know at Serif, would you consider implementing this or putting on the roadmap? Nigel
  18. Hi Sean, Thanks for the update. Have uploaded the file to the dropbox Nigel
  19. Hello, When I resize a document in Affinity Photo ( the zoom is reset to the default for that document, as expected. However, the zoom level is also reset to default for all other open documents and this is particularly annoying when trying to do comparisons. It also happens when the resize operation is undone. I would like to call this a bug but do any knowledgeable people out there have another view or have I missed something? Nigel
  20. Hi Sean, Thank you. I look forward to the implementation. I regard this thread as closed. Nigel
  21. I have tested a small .tif file which loads into the develop persona (see pic). It is a scan of a USAF target at low res. The software used to create it is SilverFast Ai Studio 8.8. In fact all scans from this software load into the Develop persona. I have opened them with both Lightroom and other software e.g. GIMP and a proprietary TIFF editor and all open correctly without hint of a problem. I have also attached the .tif file in the hope that someone knowledgeable at Serif (or anyone else out there) can shed some light on the matter. Thank you once again for your help Walt. Nigel USAF 0.7mm 600ppi.tif
  22. Thank you Walt for that nugget. I didn't know that. The smaller file (from a lower res scan) is also a .tif file and this also opens in the Develop persona. For what it's worth I changed the file extension to .tiff but that makes no difference. I imagine you're right that AP thinks it's a RAW file and I guess that there's a size limit for RAW files which is being hit. Nigel
  23. Hello Everyone, Thank you all very much for your help. I'm considering this thread closed. Nigel
  24. Hello, I'm not sure what's going on here but I have come across this strange behaviour when the gradient fill opacity is set to 0% at one end. To test I used a simple pixel layer filled with uniform colour and then a second pixel layer above it with a gradient fill. The black colour at one end is set to 100%. The white colour at the other is set to 1% in the first pic, then 0% at which point something strange happens to the layer. When the gradient reverse (3rd pic) is applied the strange behaviour is compounded. I noticed this first on a real picture when I tried to set one end of the gradient to transparent. Any adivce gratefully received! Nigel