NotMyFault

Hi Peter, it seems you are using Windows. Unfortunately many Windows Apps do not support color profiles, and simply assume sRGB, leading to wrong rendering. You need to check colors with an capable app like web browser, or Affinity. https://affinityspotlight.com/article/display-colour-management-in-the-affinity-apps/

@lepr With a trick you can avoid inpainting, and create a fully non-destructive version. the issue when using a mask and the inverted mask: it does not add to 100%, and creates a gap whenever you have semi-transparent areas. you can heal this with help of a levels adjustment, to boost alpha back to 100%. blurred background ohne inpaint.afphoto

Case closed 😀 To my knowledge and testing, it is off by default in all versions (which I dislike as I prefer to and always work non-destructively, by adding a pixel layer for inpainting)

Did you activate „current and below“? we would need a full screen capture showing the settings in use.

It is missing „automagically“ for such tasks. Newer IPhones have depth detection and deliver a height map. This can be used for Computational blur. Some competing apps try to create AI based depth map Formant image.

If you already have a mask for the motive, why not duplicate it and invert for use as background mask? You may record the process as macro to do all automatically (just need background, mask layer)

„You“ was specific to the person I replied to 😜

No, despite even the context help text says „Click or drag to set hue“ and shift/alt modifyer to add/subtract

You have totally misinterpreted the correct help text. This does not mention anti-aliasing, and „smooth edges“ actually means that anti-aliasing is used! but Anti-aliasing always (in vector mode) happens on edges in pixel-size screen resolution, no matter what zoom level you use. You will never be able to spot this by eye on high DPI displays. To see the effect of anti-aliasing on vector mode, you have 2 options: take a screenshot (baking in the screen resolution), and inspect the screenshot zoomed in take a good macro lens, and inspect the edges in extreme zoom factor on an external display attached to the camera. (I have done this to specifically see RGB diodes / subpixels)

Yes, now corrected. Thank you

Bei Deinem Ausgangsbild wird Affinity die Kanten kaum automatisch erkennen. Für eine perfekte Maske besser die Freihandauswahl nehmen. Noch genauer wird es mit dem Zeichenstift. Damit erzeigt man eine geschlossene Kurve, die anstatt einer Maske benutzt werden kann.

Um Kanten in einer Maske zu verbessern, empfehle ich folgendes: Die maskierungsebene in den Solo-Modus Isolationsmodus versetzen (Ebenenoptionen) einen runden Pinsel von ca. 8-16 px Breite auswählen. Größe nach Bedarf anpassen, notfalls auf 2px reduzieren. Farbe schwarz oder weis Härte 85% Nun mit dem Stift an der Kante entlang versäubern, sofern dort unerwünschte Übergänge sind. Mit etwas Übung geht das schnell und schafft perfekte Kanten.

Hallo und willkommen im Forum. Du kannst gerne auf Deutsch schreiben. Ich habe noch nicht ganz verstanden, was Du möchtest: Ein Objekt mit "harter" Kante maskieren? Dann besser nicht "Verfeinern"Drücken, denn das macht immer mehr oder weniger breite unscharfe Kanten, egal was Du dort einstellst. sondern die Auswahl mit dem Auswahl-Pinsel durchführen und dann direkt eine neue Maske erzeugen (diese übernimmt die Auswahl). Du kannst aber (beim Auswahl-Pinsel) "Weiche Kanten" aktivieren, das sorgt für einen schöneren Übergang, sonst wird es brutal pixelig an den Kanten.

Hi, can you upload an example image? And try to switch the language in affinity to "English", so we are able to exactly see what adjustments you are doing (in screenshots). Do you mean black and white adjustment layer? Adjusting brightness will alter the color values. In case of an RBG/8 image, you will always get some banding and rounding. When you brighten up dark areas, the colors will become unnatural. Dark colors have only very few bit to encode lightness values, and even small adjustments will cause strong changes, amplifying noise. Try this with RGB/8 document take a good image, and reduce brightness by 1/8. Merge visible Increase brightness *8 the image quality will be visibly reduced from original. If you do the same with RGB/16, the difference will be unnoticeable.

If this thread goes down that road, I’m out after this final post. if you want to ignore someone, go ahead - silent. No need to publicly attack anybody. There is a „report“ button on every post if you think it is against the guidelines.

Add a selection with lasso tool feather selection add curves adjustment create nodes according to Screenshot set blend range accordingly reduce layer opacity to get natural looking result

This has been reported before. Would be a surprise if Affinity says anything else than „works as designed“. Exactly this happens. Yes again. The older reported was simply downscaling at export (no matter what resample method) to get artifacts.

The position of „create“ and „cancel“ changed on some platforms. I often click the wrong one based on „muscle memory“.

Seems to be the trick of the day. Just recommend it in another post.

Probably caused by rotated group. you have a transparent rectangle of correct size in group. Just nest the groups as child the rectangle, then you get correct export size.

Maybe a trick. for every layer, create a rectangle of canvas size (no fill) and nest the graphics as child. you can then use export persona, create slices from layers. Exported files have canvas size.

Still valid https://affinityspotlight.com/article/display-colour-management-in-the-affinity-apps/

V2 allows to rasterize and trim multiple layers at once which reduces the effort for the case of the OP. There is still no solution for your case.

If you really want to check if exports differ in a relevant way from the content of a document, this needs a different approach. Screenshots are usable for comparison only if you take them from the same app, using the same rendering settings (e.g. view mode and document color format). the best way to check export quality of Affinity apps is to export them in 2 formats, one that stores bitmap images in all relevant aspects like uncompressed, sporting alpha channel, and having full bit depth of document, and color profile. Depending on circumstances, PNG or TIFF are best suited. Those exports will contain every single pixel of your document in full color and bit depth. choose the other format like jpeg, jpegxl, wich you suspect to be flawed, and export again. now create a new stack of both documents. Put the tiff/png on bottom, and the other on top. set blend mode of top to difference. You m any add a levels adjustment on top with white level set to 10% to boost values by factor 10. now you can spot any difference with info panel. Use channel panel to inspect individual channels, including alpha. Exports need to have identical pixel size. for jpeg, you will easily spot compression artifacts like 8 bit colors (banding), 8x8 mosaic, etc

Hi, i don’t think it makes much sense to compare screenshots of an Image in RGB/16 or RGB/32 format with export to jpeg (always RGB/8). The image rendered in Affinity while the App is open cannot show exactly how the exported image will look for various technical reasons: color depths can vary, and be smaller in export color gamut can be clipped due to limitations of export file format Zoom level other than 100% leads to perceived sharpness or blurriness RGB/32 with unbound color values cannot be 1:1 exported to certain file formats (RGB/16 and below) There are additional limitations of Affinity, partially bugs, but this do not play a role in your examples: Affinity unable to render 16 bit color depth in canvas (but it will correctly export), leading to banding Mipmap rendering will cause severe rendering artifacts for any zoom level except 100% white lines may appear at the edge of documents bitmap exports with size rescaling may look different due to resampling of layers Forced dithering of gradients at export