NotMyFault

I now get the same issue, on iPad. Workaround: add stroke of 0.5px in same color as fill. nothing shines through any more. This could mitigate the issue in your composition, but not in general.

Absolutely, i didn’t want to say anything in that direction. The mistake is solely on Affinity’s side. I created a sample document, but didn’t recolor the rectangles individually. How did you assign the individual colors? Did you resize at any time? Did you resize, adjust document setup (spread / margin) ? again, it’s not saying you made a mistake, it’s about trying where Affinity acts erratic. We have quite a few similar issue reports, but i couldn’t identify which (perfectly correct from user perspective) action triggers the issue.

Sorry, i didn’t make this clear. You need to use a jpeg from camera, or the Sony app. It is almost impossible to get identical results in Affinity compared to what camera vendors will deliver. I can prove this with own images for Canon, and assume the same applies to Sony. But this difference shouldn’t be overrated: Even Camera vendors interpret the RAW data, so there is no superior “truth” in their JPG development. Where it matters most for me is when developing a huge number of RAW files, where you have variations of exposure, white balance etc in the RAW files. In Canon DPP, It is relatively easy to batch process these images and get an adequate level of consistency regarding lighting / white balance across all of them. In Photo, it is almost impossible (far too much effort, missing tools) Never the less, a single image (processed in Photo) will look great and possibly better vs. Sony’s results. But when you compare the JPGs from Photo vs. Canon/ Sony, they will differ in multiple measurable aspects. You can try at your own: If you have RAW+JPG out of camera, open the RAW in Photo and try to match the Sony-JPG with all needed adjustments you like, as best as you can. Export as AF-JPG. Then stack both JPEGs in one file, set blend mode of top layer to “difference”, add a top levels adjustment with white level set to 10%. You will always see major differences. This is most obvious if you use “auto” settings (WB), or use a manual exposure compensation during capture.

I don’t agree to this part. When you create the same document from scratch, you get perfectly aligned rectangle which export to SVG without the false transformation values, and nothing shines through at the edges. But you can still see rounding issues like x.yz e-15 instead of zero in exported SVG. Something must have happened during editing that triggered Photo to wrongly scale and shift the rectangles, while wrongly showing perfectly integer values in transform panel.

If we we speak of partially select pixels, we do not mean that the a portion of the area the pixels is covering will be selected (getting sub-pixels). Insofar a pixel is the smallest unit of selection. We mean with “partially” is that the RGBA values (or what ever color format is used in the document) will be used partially according to the transparency level of the mask for that individual pixel. If you are referencing to “areas”: this “partial” will be applied individually to every pixel contained in the selection, using its individual transparency level defined by the selection. It does not refer to selecting x% of pixels within the selection area. So, you have a different usage of the term “partially”, that is absolutely ok. But please let the other 99% stay with our definition.

I would suggest to watch several tutorial videos, dealing with selections, masks, and channels. from your verbal description it seems you created a mask layer which is sitting somewhere in the layer stack. you may need to nest it to the adjustment or pixel layers, allowing another adjustment layer having its independent mask affecting other areas of layers at the bottom.

The active selection will be applied to the current selected layer. It is kind of a joker, waiting for the user to make his choice. Having an active selection in a document containing no layers proves nothing. It is a hair-splitting edge case with no practical impact. If you want to apply the selection to something, you need to create layers. The selection is a one-of-its kind special document-level alpha channel in the dimension of the document. As soon as you select a layer and an edit action it is used in that context. And the selection remains unchanged (not consumed) unless you deselect or change it. Try this: Create a 1x1 GREY/8 document add a pixel layer edit->fill with 50% gray use info panel to check IA values (128/255) use quick mask to Edit>fill a selection with 50% grey close quick mask use edit->cut. use info panel to check IA values (128/128) see that the pixel will become 50% transparent. So how do you want to call the 50% transparent selection: Partial selection? Full selection with 50% transparency? other ideas? It does not matter how you call it, it will work as described (and not as called by any name)

This seems to be the greatest example of ultimate cross talking. Pixels are selected if the opacity is greater than 0. But every pixel is bound to a kind of hidden mask layer, which holds its opacity value. The UI hides a lot of these underlying complexities. Selection is almost equivalent to an alpha channel or mask layer. In essence, the whole discussion is only about names for selections, masks, alpha channels. Hair-splitting at its best. If it makes you happy, you can say pixel are not partially selected - but then you must agree that every pixel has a shadow channel/layer containing the alpha value, which could be partially white or below 1. That is what 99,999% call a partially selected pixel. Language is used differently by different people and depends on context. Time for my 🛏💤

There is a test file available for download (no cost) if you follow the link to the 2.nd version of the pack.

https://affinity.help/photo/English.lproj/pages/Selections/selections_fromlayers.html Case closed.

Maybe reuse the mask. Copy the mask layer, and nest it to the HSL layer.

Use selection brush Brush over face until its fully covered (include hair in this case) refeine selection brush over edge hair / sky click apply (output: selection) create an HSL adjustment. It will use the selection and create an inherent mask in the layer. Deselect all adjust HSL slider to taste (reduce saturation). It affects only the masked area.

Find a full portrait job below: WB to remove general red tint HSL adjustment with mask to reduce red in face. You can further tweak saturation to taste. 2 Dust Removal adjustments to remove facial hair no red.afphoto

I would use a strong WB adjustment, skin looks great, sky gets blue. Job done 😅

For a full screen icon full HD (1080px wide) should be ok. For icons used in combination with regular text, 256px might be ok. Just create a sample PowerPoint file on your own and check visually if the quality looks ok when you put the icons in there. Check what happens if you scale icons (adjust size) in PowerPoint. If shapes becomes blurry, or icon details become too small to be detected, consider adjusting dimensions in Affinity, or simplify icon design.

Hi, lots of options: use white balance, adjust slider towards blue use a fill layer, sample color, set blend mode to divide, reduce opacity use HSL adjustment, sample color, reduce saturation and increase lightness maybe combine with a mask or vector shape used as mask

Thank you. I can reproduce the SVG issue. Looking into the file with a text editor (notepad++) it seems every rectangle gets transformed with factors slightly off from 1.0. This could cause the issue. I'm not an expert at all regarding SVG. The transformation could be "by design", or an bug caused by Affinity during export, or based on selected export settings- Hope the vector / SVG experts from the forum can step in at this stage. I recreated a 16x11x100px file from scratch: create 1 rectangle (avoiding any fractional position / size) copied and moved by 100px down 10 times (using power duplicate) copied column and moved by 100px 15 times using power duplicate The file exports cleanly as SVG. So i assume your file may have some edit steps in history which triggered Affinity to start this erroneous transform which leads to rounding issues. Assuming this is actually a bug, i recommend to file a bug report in the dedicated sub-forum. Your vectors seem to be perfectly aligned and sized with whole numbers, i cannot spot the reasons for Affinity going into wired transform matrix with fractional numbers. 16by11.afdesign

You are welcome.

Just drag the slider „Tonal Compression“ from 100 to 0. After this step the image is back to original. This is a questionable default, but is corrected by one click, or creating an own preset. this is explained in the Video starting 2:44. Did you watch? It gives all the answers to your questions. Then drag slider „local Contrast“ gradually up according to your taste. If happy, save as preset. Next time select your preset to speed up process.

Simply skip the stacking and directly start with the Tone Map Persona of a pixel layer.

You may create a small set (1—3) of example shapes, and export them in all formats and multiple sizes as recommended before. Then use these in the discussion with the client as example / choices to be made, to ask which format he prefers ( one vector and one pixel based), and what size (only 1 or 2, e.g. small / large). The color palette (number and exact specification of colors) must be discussed, too. Do not provide too many examples. Make a suitable preselection.

Hi Mark, hope the official tutorial helps https://affinity.help/photo/English.lproj/pages/HDR/hdr_tonemapping.html

The procedural texture filter allows to choose between these UOM. Unfortunately this doesn’t help here.

Manchmal sieht man den Wald vor lauter Bäumen nicht 🌳🌲🪵🌴🌵😂

You can try to adjust the formula of the PT filter. First question is what do you want to achieve? If you can give an example, or description in what direction you want to go, we can check.