walt.farrell

It can't. The beta is constantly changing, and the Workbook was produced long before the current beta version (or the current release version) were made available.
However, the Workbook is not a manual, intended to explain every feature of Affinity Photo. Rather, it explains the basics, and then as a learning aid it shows some advanced examples with specific projects you can work on. The beta versions of the program generally fix bugs, and add enhancements, and should not invalidate anything described in the Workbook. All the exercises should continue to work.
The Workbook won't show you everything that is in the beta, but it's not even intended (I believe) to show/describe/explain everything that is in the officially released version of the program.

Same for iPad.

For Windows, I personally find that a largely satisfactory solution, John. Of course, it depends to some extent on having an appropriate codec installed (by the user) to supplement the file types that Windows Explorer automatically knows about.

If I set the View preferences for a folder in Windows Explorer to show large icons (thumbnails), then these appear in the window when I open a file, just as in Explorer.
John

Not having two sliders saves on space in the interface but it's true that clicking on the Opacity "button" to change it to a Noise slider is not well documented or obvious in the UI.
Maybe adding a small black triangular indicator like the ones used for the multi-purpose Tools icon will let people know that there is something else hiding under that Opacity "button"
 

It can't. The beta is constantly changing, and the Workbook was produced long before the current beta version (or the current release version) were made available.
However, the Workbook is not a manual, intended to explain every feature of Affinity Photo. Rather, it explains the basics, and then as a learning aid it shows some advanced examples with specific projects you can work on. The beta versions of the program generally fix bugs, and add enhancements, and should not invalidate anything described in the Workbook. All the exercises should continue to work.
The Workbook won't show you everything that is in the beta, but it's not even intended (I believe) to show/describe/explain everything that is in the officially released version of the program.

Ain't that the truth? And it's such a beautifully phonetic one, to boot! 
 
My favorite one is how the Brits pronounce "aluminum": al-lu-min-ee-um. The first time I heard that, it was on a Youtube video, and I was like, "What is that?" LOL

English is such a marvelous, unambiguous language

English is such a marvelous, unambiguous language

Hey Paul, it's a tricky one. The vast majority of monitors, especially lower-end models, tend to ship with a high brightness level for the same reason as you've observed: everything looks "punchier".
 
Unless you're working specifically to a medium such as print, you should aim to make your brightness the same as the ambient light level in the room you're in. If it's brighter or darker then you won't perceive tones and detail correctly.
 
However, I'd really recommend that you invest in a colorimeter (e.g. the i1Display Pro) - this way you can profile your monitor to particular conditions, including brightness levels. For example, in a typical office environment with overhead lighting, you might calibrate your brightness to 100cd/m2. 120cd/m2 is the typical value given for general office and web use, but it really depends on the environment lighting. What will shock you is just how bright monitors ship by default: most iMac 5K panels I've profiled tend to be around 170 to 180cd/m2 by default (this is with the automatic brightness control enabled), but I've seen some other monitors that come in at over 200. I had an old Hazro monitor that was highly rated for photo work, and that was insanely bright to begin with.
 
With a colorimeter, you can also profile your display to a colour temperature more accurately. Most of the time you'd profile to D65 (6500K) for office and web use, as well as photo editing, but you can also profile to D55, D50 and other temperatures for print work, proofing, etc. It depends on what you need to do. You will likely find that your monitor has some sort of colour cast, even if it's slight. The 2014 iMac I use shipped with a horrible green tint, and I recently profiled a 2015 model that had a blue cast.
 
To give you an example, I typically create two profiles for my photo editing at D65 and D50 and I keep my brightness at 80cd/m2 because of dim lighting conditions. I stick with D50 most of the time (it also reduces my eye strain because it's warmer ), but toggle between that and D65 to sanity check my work. I'll often create a third profile which is based off the office's ambient temperature (profiling software allows you to take a measurement from the colorimeter) - this is for printed work where I want a closer idea of how it will look when printed and viewed under the same lighting conditions.
 
So, a bit of a ramble, apologies... At the very least, I would recommend making sure your monitor's brightness looks "level" with the room lighting, then work from there. I would definitely recommend looking at a colorimeter though, because that way you can ensure that you've taken steps to standardise your working conditions - that's all you can do, really. Different panels, different devices - they can all have varying temperatures, colour casts and brightness levels, and you'll drive yourself mad trying to satisfy every scenario. That said, if you have devices you can test on (such as phones, tablets, other monitors), all the better.
 
Hope that helps somewhat!

I don't understand the benefit you see with a square picker vs a triangle. Can you explain a bit about what it allows?

File->New From Clipboard  (shortcut: ctrl alt shift n, by default, but you can customize that from the preferences dialogs)

For this specific case, perhaps you should instead contact the creator of the brushes and report the issue so he can fix it for everyone who has them?

Hmmm. You're right. I'm certain that I didn't have the upper-right Sign-in when I posted that comment, but I see it there now. Sorry.

Interesting looking technique that should prove useful. Thanks.
Perhaps, as it already works, it should have been in Tutorials rather than Feature Requests, so more of us would see it or be able to find it easily?
 

You should also see 'Increase Contrast', but it may be displayed below the other thumbnails if the Studio isn't wide enough.

I suspect that to truly hide one's magic sauce one would want to implement and distribute a plugin, rather than a macro.

OK, that makes sense to me ... now. 
 
I tried that & your assumption is correct -- the mask is not altered.

The selection really is removed when you use Select->Deselect. It's just that for new adjustment or live filter layers the automatic mask has already been created in the layer, and removing the selection does not affect the new layer's mask. In other words, the selection, and the layer mask created from it, are two independent entities.
You would probably find that modifying the selection after creating the adjustment or live filter layer also does not alter the layer's mask, but I haven't tried that.
 

A few possibilities for lack of response so far:
Much of the Affinity team is on holiday until after Jan. 1. The Affinity team is located somewhere in the UK or Europe. You posted (I think) at about 2PM EST (US time) yesterday, which would have been after business hours for UK/Europe. You may have posted in the wrong forum. You posted in Feature Requests, rather than in Questions. I would suggest not reposting, though. A moderator will perhaps move your post if it's better in a different place.

And it's getting pretty bad reviews.
I flagged it in the Play Store as Inappropriate: Copycat or Impersonation. Not sure what effect that will have...

However, Affinity also refers to nesting one layer inside another as "clipping", which is (I think) what @carl123 may have been referring to. E.g.,  from this AP help topic,
 

And it's getting pretty bad reviews.
I flagged it in the Play Store as Inappropriate: Copycat or Impersonation. Not sure what effect that will have...

However, Affinity also refers to nesting one layer inside another as "clipping", which is (I think) what @carl123 may have been referring to. E.g.,  from this AP help topic,
 

No, it leaves you with a transparent background, which many image-editing programs happen to display as a checkerboard.
 
Have you tried it to see if it resolves your problem?
 
(However, I'm reminded of another ongoing discussion about an issue exporting a PNG file with transparency, depending on the version of AP one uses, which might cause a problem with this approach.)