Tazintosh

Hi folks, What's the situation with this bug? It's still present on the last Designer version. This is BTW just a workaround, which is sadly not complete. As any attempts to set back pressure profile —onto the solid style— will end up with the brush texture applied again. Note that clicking the "properties…" button on the Stroke panel, keeps displaying Texture related content, even if you are in solid style. The only workaround I've found to really switch back to solid style is the following: Create a filled rectangle that will frame your buggy stroke Move it under the stroke layer Intersect the two layers Switch back the result curve from fill to stroke Open it if needed (cause the curve fill be close by the operation) Set your solid style pressure Voilà! --> but this is quite some time loss.

Ok, I've been able to find a friend's computer with Photoshop installed. It appears that those Apple's files are not anymore containing Smart Objects (they were by the past), which solve my wonders. I was also mislead by Apple's own texts on guidelines: They are talking about a "localisation" folder that in fact doesn't exist on their provided contents. In the end then, I've compared all files and Affinity Photo is importing them perfectly. Solve my fear. Still, since Apple start providing other format on UI (like Sketch files), would be nice if you push them to provide Affinity format All the best.

Hi folks, Apple contacted us because they want promotional contents from our App. To do so, they're providing (you obviously know it), AppName_AS_FeaturingAppsGames.psd, AppName_AS_FeaturingToday.psd, AppName_AS_ProductPageArt.psd, AppName_AS_SupportingImagery.psd, AppName_AS_TitleTreatment.psd Those PSD files have generally a specific structure, containing "smart objects" etc. My problem, is that I'm no longer using Photoshop. I'm done with Adobe, seriously, I don't want them to get my money, and even more, I don't want them to touch my computer anymore. So my computer is totally clean from anything related since more than a year now and I won't switch back. I knew/used for to long their apps to be able to hate almost any single parts of them. Question is: how do I satisfy Apple if I cannot open the exact structure of the file they are providing? How did you managed to provide them with —your– promotional contents? Did you used Photoshop? That's embarrassing… Would be nice if you could put pressure on Apple (you can, I cannot), so they offer more formats, ideally .affinity. Else, please make your import of PSD files more efficient Thanks for your time, I would love earring back from you.

Hey Generic Patriot, Thanks for the video. Your process is interesting, but finally, it validates what I was afraid of. In your explanation/video, you are considering your mask as good by default, and then, you apply your effect (dodge or whatever) to the result masked image. What we are talking about is totally different: Applying dogding, burning, level, curve, etc. directly on the mask is all about refining it (the mask), and nothing else. The HUGE benefit of working directly on the mask is that you see in live, how it behave on your creation as you edit it. Let say your mask has slight grey areas. Those area will act as partially transparent on the masked image right? In your example, you can over paint whatever you want, in whatever blending mode, you'll still get those areas partially transparent. This is exactly not what we want. We want to be able to fix those areas, which can be defects on the mask. And to do so, you may want the doge / burn depending the need, specific areas of your mask to make it perfect. Starting at 1min. on this video I've made years ago… (was still on Photoshit), you'll exactly see the benefit I'm talking about. I'm working right into my mask, and burn it. This method provides insanely precise results when applicable. And I've endless count of case like this. At least, Photoshop logic was good on this… (the very only feature I'm missing)…

Hey Patriot, Thanks for the input, but you dare putting a "Just" in front of your multiple steps process? "rasterize to mask" will anyway produce a destructive result. Would you mind providing us a quick screen record? There are some formulations I'm missing here. Thanks in advance.

This is a little bit more than 4 years (June 2014) now that Apple have dropped Aperture. I've tested everything around (really) and Aperture simply beats hand down any single other apps in the — DAM — aspect. (I'm not talking about the adjusting tools, which luckily did evolved on competitors). I've purchased Affinity Photo in July 2015, since then, I'm reading here people asking for a DAM, and Affinity answering, "yes", "yes", "yes", then "no", then back "yes"… So I'm sticking on Aperture, it's that simple (sadly) The day an Affinity DAM will come, I simply hope it will vaporise Aperture, which no one yet have been able the achieve.

This lack is by far the most irritating part of my whole work when using Affinity Photo.

Thanks Chris.

Hi folks, On the attached video, you'll find the illustration of the bug described here: Select the Paint Brush Tool Make a —single click— to paint a point Move somewhere else and hold shift ⇧ —Single click— to paint a straight line Repeat steps 2. to 4. to better understand what's going on To make is "work", you have to click —and drag— at step 2. I hope this help. Can't wait to see this one fixed as it's pretty annoying. Thanks for the support. Affinity Straight Brush.mov

Ok, this is weird, this topic is quite old but I do encounter this issue with AD 1.6. Snapping tis behaving completely wrong with such a setting.

Multiple times, Affinity team answered (here or on Twitter) that a DAM was under development… I even had a private discussion on iMessage with a developper where we talked about Aperture and the DAM: Quote: “We’re hoping for 2017 for the DAM app […]” and my answer before ending the discussion: “Please don’t hesitate to keep in touch with xxxxx for the Aperture thingy.” I'm still sticking with Aperture because it's the best DAM + non destructive tool I've been able to test, and I know we are multiple sharing this opinion. As many too, I've put aside all thinking of switching (no way I'm going on Lightroom) because Affinity said they were on it. This is the biggest sad news for my near future workflow…

No need to tell you toltec. You just did on the line above… How can you pretend that your described workflow is non destructive while it's last step makes it even non-editable? I've 100% quit this shit of Photoshop for about two years now. So if I was "thinking" Photoshop, I would be quite weird on my decision making to be productive and live from my work. The described need on this topic has in the end nothing to do with Photoshop itself. Aperture is exactly using the same black & white concept for mask, as well as hundred of app out there, 2D or 3D. There is a reason Affinity also renders it also and B&W. It's an extremely efficient, not old fashioned, and powerful way to work. If you are not concerned by it or don't see it's potential, it's fine. But toltec, I'm trying to understand you here… We would like the mask behaviour to be enhanced, for the good of it. Out of curiosity and rather than arguing against the feature itself, how would —your— work be impacted by a behaviour like the one we want? Because, my small brain is searching for valid reasons, and while a pixel B&W behaviour for masks would insanely help our workflow in Affinity, I don't see how yours would change since your work seems obviously not concerned.

Hi toltec. Sadly, absolutely not. rui_mac & F_J_Woods have nicely explained this on the previous page. The Dodge/Burn feature to work on a mask is an absolute need for any advanced work on compositing etc.

I cannot agree more with the requests made here. The Affinity mask behaviour seems completely wrong to me (and this is hurtful considering how much Affinity Photo or Designer are good). Fixx last comment makes absolute sense. I've also been on my side asking about enhancements: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/41815-mask-gradients-enhancement-highly-needed/ Today (that's the reason of my answer here), I had to outline a people silhouette. I've first used the selection brush + refine to get the main part of it, then created a mask. Obviously, you still have greyed area, like here: In Photoshit, you just have to get the dodge tool, paint, and boom, you're done with a perfect mask. In Affinity Photo, I've lost great time just to figure out the workarounds. • You cannot dodge / burn the mask • You cannot level / curve the mask • You cannot use brush blend mode on the mask • You cannot draw gradient (while keeping previous painting) on mask • You cannot covert the mask to a basic pixel layer so dodge, burn, level, etc. would finally work… These are quite some limitations just for a mask don't you think? You must merge your mask twice (for white + black) before been able to get a black & white layer (or get the pixel selection of the mask and fill a pixel layer) Then you do your work (with NO preview since it's not a mask anymore. Then you rasterize to mask hopping you're adjustments are goods… Guess what if not… you start over the complete thing… it's seriously madness.

Hi MEB. If you set the document background transparent, it's working yes. Still, I'm working with artboards and need a color background to better see what I'm doing. The workaround I found is to create a rectangle to the size of my artboard, that act as a background. Then I uncheck the "Make item visible in export" on the layer panel of the export persona. But such a manipulation reminds me to much of Illustrator where we used to trick all the time… So it's still not a perfect situation and it doesn't looks like the high end level you guys usually provide :/