Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Tazintosh

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    213

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Tazintosh

  1. Tazintosh
    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.
  2. Tazintosh
    This lack is by far the most irritating part of my whole work when using Affinity Photo.
  3. Tazintosh
    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…
  4. Tazintosh
    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.
  5. Tazintosh
    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.
  6. Tazintosh
    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.
  7. Tazintosh
    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 :/
  8. Tazintosh
    Hi MEB, • The problem occurs with basics formats like jpeg, png, etc. • When I copy from the Messages screen (tapping+holding + copy), then the paste element is just a text of the filename ​• When I copy from the detail view (tap image + share icon on top right + copy), then nothing is paste (neither by cmd+v on the iPad keyboard, neither using the Pasteboard Menu. Note that from this share icon, importing to Affinity Photo does work, but this creates a new document, thus forcing to copy > switch document > paste
  9. Tazintosh
    Hi folks, It have been quite some times since my post, and I'm still missing this feature very much. Look at this screenshot. I'm made a three part button but have no way to export the left and right part with transparency. The background is always added.
  10. Tazintosh
    Nope?
  11. Tazintosh
    Hi folks, Today is my first day using in a real way (for production) Affinity Photo from my new iPad Pro. My client sent me via iMessage an image I've to work with. By tapping+holding my find on the iMessage image, I've chosen "Copy". Switched back to Affinity, I've pressed cmd+v (or the menu entry) to paste. My surprise (and I've to agree, frustation) was great when I obviously noticed this was not working and the only pasted thing was the filename as pixel layer. Having to first save to camera roll to then open it back on Affinity is contra productive, make syncing (iCloud etc.) occurs for no reason, etc. Am I doing something wrong?
  12. Tazintosh
    Hey MEB. This is exactly the point of this feature request post ;) Since we can already paint a pixel mask using brushes (including by using opacity), why not simply offering this possibility to the gradient tool (when used on mask)? This tool already support opacity, it's just about supporting it on pixel masks. Also, have you been able to achieve setting up a gradient default for pixel mask other than white>grey?
  13. Tazintosh
    Hi MEB. Don't get me wrong, as said just before, I know the technic you're are talking about and I accept the workflow you and Sima are proposing. It's a fully valid and argued concept. But right now, I'm talking about the "New Mask Layer". You keep referring to vector masks, initially built from a shape. This is —not— the same as the "New Mask Layer" I'm talking about. And for this exact case ("New Mask Layer", not a vector mask), I would love you to show me how to save gradient's tool defaults… Edit ▸ Defaults ▸ Save is not working in that case and the white to grey is always the default. BTW, still speaking about "New Mask Layer", you guys can see on the following video that I can first create a gradient (pixel, non editable, it's fine), then paint on it with a brush. This is not erasing my previous gradient, I can continue painting as much as I want on this particular mask. But if I use again the gradient tool, it will erase all my previous work! Why having such a different behavior depending the tool? You allow a brush to paint partially over a gradient, but you don't allow the opposite. I simply don't understand this, and I've the deep feeling this cannot be done "by design". Else I'm really curious for the arguments. PaintOnMask.mov
  14. Tazintosh
    Thank you both for your answer. :) I indeed know this technics, and I also perfectly understand the benefits of keeping stuffs editable. Anyway, this choice should be given to the user (parametric gradient or "pixel gradient" that would act exactly like I described, in an extremely fast way. Users could then decide depending the need. Anyway, I've noticed how you (Sima) workaround this extremely irritating —mask— issue where the gradient is NOT editable at the moment you deselect (sorry MEB) and settings are —always— set back to white/grey. What you did is simply impossible with masks (I mean, it would take 10x the time —considering the actual methods is already kind of slow—, and would even not be editable). What about my second subject MEB? The Gradient Tool
  15. Tazintosh
    Hello the A-Team! :) Ok, I'll be straight forward on this one: I'll find attached a video record made on Photoshop. The technique shown on a boring solid fill is in fact an insanely productive method when mate painting, photo retouching, etc. Here's the challenge: Make me this in Affinity (Photo or Designer, choose the one you want). Made in Photoshop in 5 clicks. The gradient tool is set from solid black to 0% black. MakeMeThisOnAffinity.mov I've not been able yet to find any method to match the productivity of Photoshop on this point. (Trust me, combining both words “productivity” & “Photoshop” in a sentence is a serious pain I would like to avoid…). Also, when selecting the Gradient Tool: Why is it always defaulted to "None"? (If I pick the gradient tool, chances are quite high for me to make something else than "none", I even guess linear could be my favorite pick…). Why I cannot set the default colors for my gradient tool? (When starting to draw a gradient, colors are —always— white to grey, and I —always— have to change them afterward… Can't wait to ear from you guys :wub:
  16. Tazintosh
    Is There Anybody Out There? :)
  17. Tazintosh
    Thanks a lot MEB, I really can't wait for it!
  18. Tazintosh
    Hi MEB, Are you guys planning to add such a feature? This impact greatly the productivity :(
  19. Tazintosh
    Good morning, afternoon, evening (pick you fav.)! I'm working a —lot— with constraints. It's an incredible time saver. But not always… :( Lets say you've designed a complex element, using a lot of constraints, groups, subgroups, children, etc. All of this is perfectly working with constraints when you resize the element (wider or higher). But now, you need to change it's size for any of the many reasons that could exist. I really mean you have to —scale— up/down everything: texts, shapes, etc. At this moment, you —don't— want any of the constraints to apply. I've not found yet anything that would allow me to do this. Didn't found a shortcut to temporarily deactivate constraints. Didn't found an button to reset/remove —all— constraints of an element and —all— it's children. --> My only workaround (and I hate it), was to duplicate the element, and manually destroy all the work done (delete all groups, children, clips, set everything to one single level), and then apply a default constraint to all. My work is composed of a —huge— amount of elements, and the time lost to do the above is killing me :( Am I missing something? All the best
  20. Tazintosh
    Guys? Please give us some updates on this topic :)
  21. Tazintosh
    +1 on this too. It would much simplify the workflow.
  22. Tazintosh
    +1 This is a huge need specially when dealing with existing, imported works. The ability to change thousand of elements attributes in one click cannot be counter argued :) This is one of the extremely rare case I still have Illustrator installed on my Mac Pro, what a pain…
  23. Tazintosh
    I definitely have to bump this one guys :) Cheers,
  24. Tazintosh
    I was more thinking for an even more generic feature, that applies to all shapes, non limited to circles :)
  25. Tazintosh
    Hi folks, I would like to be able to set much more precisely the gap value of a stroke in Affinity. There is a trick I'm using quite often (in Sketch) which makes able to finely fake a "progress" of the stroke around a circular shape. The point is to set the gap of the stroke as the exact diameter of the circle by multiplying π with it's width (for instance, 500*3.14159265359 if your circle is 500px diameter). This basically means that the gap is now equal to the perimeter of the circle. By changing the Dash value then, we can precise make the stroke grow around the circle. PreciseBorderStrokeProgress.mov Sadly in Affinity, gap value goes from 0 to 100, which simply is way less easy to fine tune, to understand, and also prevent choosing whatever stroke width we want etc. I would love to be able to adjust more precisely these values, but ultimately (and I'm sure you Affinity guys knows exactly what I'm going to say ^^), it would be amazing if you could simply provide a new setting for the stroke: "Progress". With a slider (or precise value input), we could instantly set the progress of a stroke, as well as many other options like how it is etc. Can't wait to hear your thought about it. Cheers.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

 Accept Cookies  Reject Cookies