Burndog
-
Posts
56 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Burndog
-
-
This problem happens with any images captured on an iPhone (V13 Pro). The images open and can't stay at their original exposure (for lack of a better term).
You can see in the video how the image goes "light" and will go back to the proper darkness without any repeatable click.I can understand a glitch on one program but this happens on Desktop as well as iPad Pro, both V2 Affinity Photo. And it's not just one photo, it's all I have worked with. Note: this does not happen in Photoshop. Anyone else getting this problem???
-
It's rather disappointing that the actual Developers have not weighed in on this matter or even responded. 😞
-
Yes, this is a ridiculous feature that should allow toggling on and off (or just don't auto resize the viewport scale...ever)
-
37 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:
There are plenty of other arguments. How do you open a webp file on the desktop, for one? Not in Photoshop without a plugin... Not in APhoto... Etc.
So two fingers to anyone using the other formats as long as you get the one that you want? Nice.
Sniff snifff... You really don't need to open WebP files after export. I understand many of the people don't understand much of the reasons behind how and why WebP is required for those of us that work on the Internet, with SEO, and how a parent/master file with multiple layers and then Exporting a flat file makes sense.
Who really uses TIFFs anymore when PSD is available? TGA? HDR probably has more merit for those in the 3D realm. EXR?
I wish someone from Serif would chime in as if they share the view that Designer and Photo where not created for people that also work on the web, I'll go back to Adobe as that is extremely short sighted. -
It's surprising how so many people that are clueless to the benefits of WebP have so much time to try to criticize it's benefits.
Simply put, WebP can format images that rival the quality of PNG but have the file size of a highly compressed JPG. That's it. There is no other argument.
If Serif was paying attention they would remove one of the other export options and add WebP.
-
5 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:
Er hello... your words:
Google from the perspective of SEO.
SEO is the biggest thing there is if your doing this professionally. If your just posting pics of your kitty to aunt jane and the rest of the family, then no big deal. But if your actually managing a website from the perspective of SEO (which means your in a competitive market related to eyes on a site), you have to play by Googles rules.
These rules include Mobile First, Content is King, and efficiency in delivery translates to better positioning in the SERPs. -
Google and "cats" is not relative to the case. Google images are other peoples images so just because most of the other hacks out there don't understand SEO and how WebP can create better looking images than jpg and equal to png, does not matter.
SEO is s highly competitive industry. Having the ability to create high quality images in a smaller file size is important. -
Just because some random large websites don't use webP is no reason to discount the value when you take into consideration the larger Gorilla in this equation which is Google. Efficient websites are given higher ranking in the SERPs due to their working better on the new primary target, mobile devises. WebP is not a small improvement over jpgs and pngs it a HUGH improvement.
-
We are not talking about an exotic format when we request webp export. It’s disappointing Serif has not addressed and incorporated this modern and highly efficient format.
-
Webp is supported by most browsers. JPEG XL are supported by NONE.
I would not hold my breath based on this information and stick to using WebP which is dramatically better than PNG, JPG and other current formats. -
1 minute ago, Alfred said:
Really??
I hear you... But the droning on and on and on.... It's like a petulant child that keeps trying to make some point that they clearly have no clue about and this comes at the cost of everyone else's legitimate statements.
IF the comments were from seasoned SEO's then fine. But this is not the case and more clearly chaff, and for what point? Is there some other feature that needs to be incorporated at this moment?
Yes, I was rude. Sorry -
28 minutes ago, R C-R said:
Are you disputing that very few websites actually use WebP or do you mean something else?
I'm disputing that you, or your research has ANY helpful bearing in this conversation.
Not only does Google want to see webp as an image format, most of the WYSIWYG websites that many beginners use, are converting their uploads to webp. Both Google and these cheesy website creation services are enough weight to show that this is NOT some minor or esoteric request.
Again, I don't mean to be rude but please stop wasting space on something you clearly have no real world understanding or experience with. -
4 hours ago, R C-R said:
They have already provided an answer for why they have not (yet) added WebP export capabilities to the Affinity apps, that being they claim that currently very few websites use it to deliver raster format content.
What I did was the same thing anybody else could do, that being to take around a minute to look for a credible source to verify if that claim is justified. Apparently it is.
NO it's not... Get a life and stop wasting space on this thread as you have no clue or dog in this fight.
- carl123, Jowday and Move Along People
-
1
-
2
-
Why are people that clearly have no idea of what webp is for commenting so much?
I don't mean to be rude but why are people clogging this thread with their uniformed comments that don't relate to the purpose of WebP and how it effects SEO and website use? -
34 minutes ago, R C-R said:
But is the use of WebP on your website in any way connected to how successful it would or could be? I rather doubt that is true.
Google uses website efficiency as a key benefit to ones SEO ranking. So yes, it matters.
And as noted, your websites success is based on it being found via search engines, or if not, the site effectively does not exist. We're talking business, not a website of your puppy that only your family knows of.Google is the 1000 pound Gorilla and there is no denying that their edicts are factors we need to consider, whether one likes it or not.
- MmmMaarten and All Media Lab
-
2
-
36 minutes ago, carl123 said:
They can't just dictate "what is expected".
They are the the determining factor if you have a website that you want to be successful. There is no argument to this. If your customers can't find you they you don't exist no matter how unfair you perceive the situation to be.
-
Bottomline is that Google dictates what is expected and we all need to accept this. Why Google? Because of SEO. IF Google gives benefit to webp due to it's obvious efficiency and then uses this matrix in how they deliver their SERPs, there is no argument.
-
I use Andriod Studio on my Mac to create WebP from high quality png files:
https://developer.android.com/studio
Rather disappointed an extra program is needed but we do what we have to do...
-
-
8 hours ago, Dan C said:
then let me know when this has been completed?
Files uploaded as well as a new set with single layer version and both exported and downsized images includes. Downsize to 1200px at 85% jpg from both Affinity Photo and Photoshop 2020
-
16 hours ago, h_d said:
I don't know if it's relevant but they're not the same image. In the Photoshop version the grey catches are retracted. In the Affinity Photo versions they're extended. You might care to upload your original images to see if anyone can help.
Cheers
H
Yes, you are correct but it's the same case for all. I have multiple images which show the 3 adjustment blocks all in one file then downsize and animate the results.
I can assure you the problem is not related to which image but rather the lack of how an image is downsized and loss of quality that results.
I've attached a new sample for clarity and to remove any concerns. -
I really like the features of AF Photo where it can build vectors within the same document. But...
I'm trying to move from Photoshop and now find that there is a significant issue with image quality when you try to downsize an image.Shooting product and converting to final images sizes for websites is essential in my business. I need full size images for print and downsized image for websites. Take a look at the attached image. Upper right corner is working from the full size and exporting to jog @80% and resizing to the intended 1200 px wide. Terrible results.
An improvement is to duplicate the parent document and resize prior to export. That is the example in the upper left corner. Still not very good and shows an overall issue with downsizing images. I've tried all the different options and see little if any difference.Conversely, look at the image in the lower left. THAT is how it should work (Photoshop Export As, resizing on the fly).
Is this a known issue that we may see improvement on in the future?
-
1 hour ago, fde101 said:
You seem to be making the assumption that the entire world revolves around the web...
True, but in the context of this discussion we are talking about "Google Pagespeed" which is related to the web.
Does the Affinity development team ever weigh in on these discussions? It would be of interest what the difficulties are in implementing webP either natively or as a plugin. For instance, is the format propietary? Is there a licensing fee from Google or?
-
JPEG XR seems useless unless you're on a Microsoft box:
https://caniuse.com/#feat=jpegxrAnd JPEG 2000 is a Safari only resource:
https://caniuse.com/#search=JPEG 2000Dump both these and add webP would be a better and wiser choice IMHO
iPad and Desktop Photo - does not work with images from iPhone
in Affinity on iPad Questions
Posted
I uploaded the file to your DropBox.
I think the issue is that iPhone files are HEIC format and the Affinity products don't yet handle that format?
I've uploaded another one to the Dropbox location (DoHoPalms.afphoto). Additional tests were to open the afphoto document in afDesigner version 2 (desktop) which did not demonstrate the same problem.
Next I saved from afDesigner as a .afdesign doc and then opened that file in afPhoto. Result: problem still present (Video attached).
One more quirk is that I can not screen video the problem because while the haze shows on the monitor it does not show in the captured video. That is why I use my external video for the demo to illustrate the problem.