Dreamer

Hello again, I hope this doesn't sount like too stupid a , but I would like to resize JPEGs and PNGs without changing the DPI-Value and without Resampling. Is there a way to do that? Because I know that the picture qualitiy is high enough to zoom in immensely. So I would like to take a few pieces of the picture - say for example 3 inches by 3 inches and I know they will still look good when enlarging them by a factor 5. In other words, that little piece will still look good when printed as 15x15-inches picture with 300 dpi. (the original picture also has a dpi of 300.) But I cannot simply upload the original 3x3-piece - I get an error message. So really all I would need is a way to change the metadata of the picture: the values for hight and width. But I haven't found a program yet that will allow me to do this. In Affinity Photo's Macro Lirbrary there is a macro called "Strip Metadata" so I guess I can use the Programm for working with Metadata as well? Thank you very much for your help and kind regards, Dreamer

Hello there, I have two questions about inserting a picture into an already existing document. 1.) In PhotoPlus, there was the possibility to insert a picture via the "File"-Menu. I haven't yet found that option in Affinity Photo - is it hidden anywhere I haven't looked yet? 2.) Of course you can always simply drag a picture from its original folder into an already within Affinity created document. Only this massively, MASSIVELY changes its size. I have attached two pictures two show what I mean. The peony painting below is about 2400px times 2400 px big. If I start Affinity Photo and then open the png from within Affinity I get the left picture: A document is created that is about 2400px times 2400 pixel big. I created an empty document of about 2400px times 2400 px then dragged the png into it. I would have expected the flower to exactly fill out the document. But in fact, it opens up so big that I can only see the tips of a few petals. How can that happen and why? Thank you very much in advance, Dreamer

Hello there, I am currently playing around with the adjustments to get to know them a bit better and there is something about the gradient maps that quite baffles me: I would have expected that when I insert an additional "circle" (I guess that would be called "handle"?) only the position of the handle would influence the gradient map. But I get completely different results, depending on where I originally created that handle. I have attached pictures to illustrate this a bit. the first one shows the original gradient. In the second picture, I created the handle at 3%, then dragged it to 88% (or 89%). In the third picture, I directly created the handle at 88%. Could anybody explain this to me, please? And frankly, while I am asking about the gradient map: What are the additional handles in between supposed to do? I mean - yeah - you can add additional colors in between. But even if I stay within the same hue, they have an effect, though only on the lightness-value. And I'd like to understand that effect a little bit better. Thank you very much in advance, Dreamer

Hello there, When creating swatches: What is the difference between Document, Application and System Palettes? And is it possible to export "my" Palettes - I am a bit afraid that, should I ever need to reinstall Affinity Photo or Designer, all my personal input might be lost and thus always try to back up as much of it as possible... Thank you very much and kind regards, Dreamer

Dear stokerg, I am a bit confused by your reply, too - you can't see a way to do this, either - can you? Would there be at least a way to save a partition made by - for example - nine slicers, so that I do not have to draw them again and again for each and every picture? How long would any of you suggest that I wait before opening up a feature request? Kind regards, Dreamer

Hi there, I would like to partition a lot of picture into nine subpictures each. In other words: I would like to digitally cut every picture into nine pieces. And at first, using the slicers available in export persona seemed to be the perfect solution. Since the partition always stays the same, this sounded like a job for batch mode. I just have one problem: When recording a macro, I cannot define a slicer. So right now it would seem that I cannot use this awesome feature in batch mode. Does anyone know any way around this? Thank you very much and kind regards, Dreamer

Hi Fixx, First of all thank you for replying to my question. But there's something in your answer I don't quite understand: If my JPEGs were originally not saved with the very best 100% quality, than Affinity could not save them with better quality unless it actively did something - could it? (And I swear I didn't change anything myself. I went straight from opening the pic to exporting it.) But I am not worrying about harddrive space. I want to back up my stuff not just on external drives and discs but also in a cloud - but I don't worry about cloud space, either: It's the internet connection. Where I live, the best I can get is ... not the best that would be possible. It's okay, I can watch youtube videos, but when it comes to uploading I am grateful for every GB I do not have to upload. Very, very grateful.

Dear all, I would like to compress my massive amount of JPGs in order to save some space and when I just opened up a picture in order to try out the amount of compression that would not yet show too much in the quality the following thing surprised me: The original JPG is about 4.4 MB big. If I go straight to "Export" (really don't do anything in between) and want to export it at 100% it is suddenly 9.43 MB when using Affinity Photo. When using Photo Plus X8 the "new" picture is about 8.0 MB. So it more than doubles in size just by opening in a programme and exporting it in the original format, the original resolution and at the original quality? Is it correct to assume that this is somehow because of the Resampling Method? Kind of like: I didn't do anything but the programme actually did quite a lot? And if I cannot export without resampling: Can anyone recommend a combination of Resampling Method and quality level that one the one hand don't lover the perceived quality too much but on the other hand put a good dent in the file size? Thank you very much in advance, Dreamer