rvst

If your photos are too dark when you print them out, it usually means that the brightness on your screen is too high. This results in you getting something that looks "right" on the screen but too dark on the printed photo. General advice is to calibrate the monitor for 120cmd2 of brightness. I tend to calibrate mine at 100cdm2 as I find even 120cmd2 can result in prints that are a little too dark.

No. I'm looking to manually edit the mask in non-contiguous areas. One can unmask areas by painting with the paintbrush but not the reverse.

You might still be having trouble with the Windows profile loader and some application that is unloading the calibration on the fly. I have a hardware calibratable monitor. What I usually do is to use the vendor's tool to calibrate the monitor and write the calibration to its hardware LUT, then I then use Displaycal to profile the already calibrated monitor (discarding the profile generated by the vendor software). I use Displaycal's profile loader to load the display profile, so if it ever gets unloaded then Displaycal will automatically reload it. Suggest trying this. It would be a shame to get rid of the EIZO.

Oh, I installed the MSI long ago, when the test 2.03. installer was made available. You're replying to something from the beginning of November, but thanks for the heads up anyway. I was aware when unsandboxing it that it wasn't supported.

Use the MSI versions of the installers. These MSIX versions are broken. Several people have had the same error. They're also poor at integrating with 3rd party programs. The MSI installers will install Affinity as a "normal" Windows program and you won't have these errors.

You're using the wrong ICC profile for your Dell monitor. You can't use the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 profile, since it's not a display profile. Set the monitor hardware settings to sRGB, then use Displaycal to calibrate and profile your Dell monitor. The EIZO looks to be a custom calibration and profiling, since you noted that you used ColorNavigator and the filename seems to indicate a properly calibrated and profiled monitor.

It sounds like your calibration might have been reset by some other app and then when you activated the ICC profile after Affinity started, it reloaded the calibration as it should and you then see the correct colours. You might be running into problems with limitations of the Windows profile loader, which according to the developer of Displaycal, scales incorrectly and has poor 8-bit quantization. It's also possible to lose the calibration if some other process resets it as the Windows profile loader won't reload it. https://hub.displaycal.net/forums/topic/q-regarding-dc-profile-loader/#post-14013 This is the reason that Displaycal comes with its own profile loader, which you need to check when installing the display profile after calibrating and profiling your monitor. This solves the problem and will reapply the calibration as necessary. I've never seen any colour difference between Affinity Photo and any of my other colour managed apps (the images look identical when viewed side-by-side). I use the Displaycal profile loader. I find Displaycal does a better job than any of the commercial software I've used. Try switching to Displaycal and using their profile loader and see if the problem persists.

Cool, thanks - missed that one. I was on vacation so hadn't read that thread. Sounds like I'm not the only one who thinks this should be done

Many vendors offer a bug-tracking web page for adding bug reports and tracking bug resolution status. There are lots of open source packages that do this. I'd like to suggest that Affinity use a tool like this and make it available to the user base. I'd also like to suggest much more detailed release notes when new versions are released, listing exactly which bugs have been repaired in any given release. Obviously, one needs such a bug tracking system to enable such detailed release notes, since each bug needs a reference number and description. Release notes are currently VERY thin on detail.

@Patrick Connordo we need to uninstall the test MSI v2.0.3 variant before installing the v2.0.4 MSI or will it install over the test version cleanly?

There's a completely reworked and much cleaner variant of this code on my github, although to be fair, I'd suggest anyone just use the test 2.0.3 MSI installer instead. No reason to use the MSIX anymore.

Ha. So there's a subtlety to the way the new value needs to be entered. If one simply overwrites the "65536 MB" by changing the 65536 to a different value leaving the "MB" at the end, it doesn't stick. If one overwrites the value by putting in, say "80000" and clearing the "MB" so that ONLY a numerical value is in the entry box, then it sticks.

This is a problem that I reported in v1 of Affinity and that persists today: My computer has 128GB of RAM. Affinity appears to hard code a maximum 64GB of RAM. In Affinity v1, I used to be able to override this value by directly entering a value in the input box next to the slider (but was never sure it actually took effect), but as of V2, this value does not stick - it's immediately reset to 65536MB This is a bug. It's an easy to fix bug and it's one that should be fixed. Image editing is very memory intensive and it seems silly to limit usable RAM artificially

Chris, could I respectfully request that you download the file yourself? I gave you all the information you need. This file is almost 5GB in size, and I really don't want to nail my upload quota by uploading it when it's available for download easily on the site above. Just click on the link above in the original post to go to the portal then complete the steps shown below

So your GPU trounces mine on the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, a full 44% faster, but is 30% slower on the Affinity benchmark. Puzzling.