Artvid

This post is about something I didn't think was possible. I do my painting in Corel Painter (at least until Affinity comes with a contender), but this topic is not about the Painter, but about Affinity Photo. Working with musicians, mainly from Norway and the US, and as we all know an album or LP in vinyl, has at least 8 tracks typically. So as my artwork basically are digital-based today, I can do as musicians - publish an LP, not with 8 tracks, but with 8 paintings. Let me add that LP here is not 'Long Playing', but 'Long Painting' (-: So when the first painting was done, I copied a slice of the right side of the painting and pasted that thin slice on the left side on the next canvas - and the plan was to put them together as one Long Painting, ending up as a video. In Painter, I use the size of 10'000x7'143 pixels, 300dpi, as that is reasonably close to what Painter can take, as this would result in a width of 80'000 pixels. So I reduced the height a bit to 4'223 pixels, put one and one painting together, and the result was a with of 50'612 pixels. Honestly, that amazed me, as this is pretty large - but Affinity Photo worked as an amazing hero, and I got the result that one can view here on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InGkezL_Wb4&t=28s Thank you Affinity for making my crazy ideas possible (-:

Well thank you, Patrick, at least you are honest 😂 ps, not arguing, just asking - the programs work for me at least (using maybe 2,43 per cent of their options - and still happy he he).

I see the workbooks is here but is it only an option to order these books as physical books? If the answer is 'yes', why don't Affinity have the same option for these books as download as pdf files? I hardly buy physical books any longer, so if it's only hardback versions, Affinity loses at least one purchase this way (from me).

@SrPx For the difference between art and illustration, note that I wrote: "To be an artist is for me never about technique" In other words, what I say is 'for me', not a general statement. Illustrators are artistic or whatever, but for ME I don't care as long as I don't have to illustrate. It doesn't mean that I don't like illustrations or whatever as long as I don't have to illustrate. See my point? When I was running a underground gallery in Oslo, Norway, I had lot's of artists - from fresh artists to international legends as lovely Christo and Jean-Claude. Sad to say that Christo also passed away earlier this year (https://christojeanneclaude.net/). All of them had their own angle towards art and their own expression - and that is how it should be in my world. So I appreciate other peoples work, their angles and their artworks. But I mistrust anyone who believe they know everything. The worst in the art industry is for me still the socalled star curators. If I'm allowed, can I recommend you two books you might find interesting? First is: CURATIONISM - HOW CURATING TOOK OVER THE ART WORLD AND EVERYTHING ELSE by David Balzer and the second: THE PAINTED WORD by Tom Wolfe

@SrPx I guess you are more tech than me (-: I use computers as I used my pencils. Never had the need for expensive brushes, mostly I used a brush with an angle on the handle close to the bristle head (also called radiator brushes) as my canvases were at least 200x160 cm. I use software the same way, even in Corel Painter (which I have used for more than ten years) I guess there is not many per cent of full options I use. I have no time to investigate tech but know enough to my artwork. Used PaintShop, but when my printer guy told me I should go for Adobe RGB, I stopped with PaintShop as it could not have Adobe RGB colour profile, only sRGB. Tested several other programs, but remembered that I had also used Serif before, and when I found Affinity, that was exactly covering my need. So all my ten thumbs up for Affinity (-: My relation to software is about as the same I have for my scooter - either it works, or not. As I knew Serif a bit, the hill to get into this program was not that steep. But tech apart from having all programs by Affinity, my Painter and Wacom Mobile Studio, that's not interesting for me. But I respect and applaud all who want to dive into the tech side (-: Btw, thank you for explaining your abbreviations.

@lian00 - strange. Are you able to give me the size of your work 'A3' with 300dpi? I said 'strange' as I have worked with images (all 300dpi), in size up to 50'612 x 4'223 pixels. Haven't done larger, but even this size Affinity Photo took without any problems (-:

@SrPx, not sure what you mean with PD or CSP? CMYK, never use that. Never use black, as pigments (when I painted on canvas, or digital). Using the palette and mix (as I did when working with acrylic) black from only red, blue and yellow. To be an artist is for me never about technique, it's like musicians say, all about if you have found your own 'voice'. If a visual artist doesn't have her or his own 'voice', is s/he a true artist? That's the only definition of an artist in my world? Have been a selected artist with my art projects, by among others UNESCOs head office in Paris, but I refuse totally to work with the so-called star-curators and galleries. Now I work with musicians and consider myself as a 'visual musician' (-: Search 'Arnvid Aakre' on youtube, and you can see a tiny bit of how I work with musicians. Thank you for your long reply, sorry to come back so late, but I had a deadline with some musicians in LA. Below is an example with sketches for Chinatown Bluesband's last album, here performing the Stones cover 'Mothers Little Helper' with a very simple setup.

SrPx, yes, both vector as pixels, but for me, that's not really the point. I use 'illustration' in the meaning of illustrating something as if I illustrate literature, a book front cover or a magazine front cover. With some few exceptions, I never accept commissions. My artwork doesn't illustrate anything, and even as it's semi-figurative, it's colours, lines and planes that interest me. The result is that I work abstract, and the painting doesn't illustrate anything (that's up to the viewer).

Hello, a bit late here, but I guess the question is still valid? As a professional artist since 1983, previously acrylic on canvas, but mainly using digital painting and drawing tools for 12 years now. For my artwork, I only paint with Corel Painter 2021. BUT from there it's only Affinity tools; Photo - Designer and Publisher. Especially Affinity Photo is used. Finished a work, of course saving as a riff file (Corel), and then save that as tiff as Affinity don't take riff (but that's ok for me). I refuse to use anything from Adobe as I don't support their policy, but even if I had, it would be Affinity (-: Affinity Photo is what I recommend all - but for the painter software, Corel Painter is for me the one I prefer as I can use all my experience from physical painting, and it gives me the full control (don't accept tools or plug-ins that automate the result in any way). BUT what defines a professional artist for me is that s/he have found their own voice (stroke and colour temperatures and so forth). From there everyone should just test what is available - there is not a best program as I see it, so search, try and you will end up with the tools that fit you the best (and I would of course love to see an Affinity Painter tool one day). PS, I absolutely don't use a vector software, as that for me is not painting but illustration.

Good point, I actually have landed on the same conclusion. Should we then ask S. Affinity to start to develop an Affinity Painter - then we can both use the same program? (-:

Medical Officer Bones, I do appreciate and respect your answer highly. From what you explain this time it's easy to see that we work in very different areas. My background is in painting on large canvases where I mixed my paint - buying 50 litres with PVA (acrylic base) and mixing it with raw pigments. Through the painting process, I put the canvas on the floor and washed away some of the paint before all was dry, to get the effect I wanted in the result. To give you two examples, first, it's a portrait I did in 1985. In the photo here it's hanging home at an art collector so you can see the size. The second picture is an underwater serial with paintings, and beside is a younger version of me (-: Both done basically the same way where the painting technique is an essential part of the process for me. Below that again is two paintings done with Painter. Yes, 35 years as a painter makes me use a technique digitally that's based upon my work with canvases and painting. I have many things I'm far from happy with Painter, as the support staff - still it's the software that let me work in a way where I can bring some part of my experience with non-digital painting into digital made artwork as well. For me, that's best done with Painter, but I do hope that Corel gets better and start to listen more to its users - or that I find a different software that fits my needs better than Corel's Painter. If I had worked more in the areas you work in, then I would not have used Painter, but it works well with my Wacom MobileStudio - and I admit that I'm a bit lazy as well - as when it works ok, then the rest is up to me (-:

Point taken Fixx (-: Just remember I'm an artist, and even if I have worked a lot with HTML coding and large sites, I'm absolutely not a tech guy (-: When I worked with my large canvases and acrylic paint, I have to admit that the artwork was not always kindly treated. They were stuffed into vans to bring them to exhibitions and so on, and not much better inside my studio. But I can tell you that when paintings were sold for ten thousand USD and upwards - the gallery treated them like fragile glass when bringing them to the art collectors. A friend who is a curator at the Munch Museum in Oslo told me that Edvard Munch used to lay his paintings out in the garden, open air where wind, rain or snow could give them what Munch called patina. Well it's not as easy when I make my artworks digitally today, my printer is sitting on my shoulder asking for a specific standard, so when I hear compressed, I get the shiver, just because I don't know enough tech stuff )-: So sorry for ranting about what maybe should be basic knowledge when working digital, but I'm not all there yet - so thank you for your patience and help, all of you, it's highly appreciated (-:

Puh, that's great - then my printer will not kill me (-: Lucky to have a great gichlee printer here in Norway, he only work for artists - so all prints has to go through me. But he always call me, "check this and that" - but the results are just amazing, so he is keeping the standard for me. When I sell outside Norway I just sell the files for download, and based on some recommendation from me, the buyer do the printing locally (great if they are in Japan or even UK). I was on the wild hunt for alternative to Affinity, even looked at Photoshop in my desperation. But please Affinity developers, can't you just let us user choose if we want uncompressed or LZW - we are adults you know?

Thank you Walt. Important information again here, and I get frustrated, seem that whatever program I use, it must be something. Hey, I don't ask for much - but as I sell my artwork as digital files, in tiff - I need the best quality. Meaning, Adobe RGB 1989 colour profile, at least 16-bit colour depth, and an uncompressed file. But to what you wrote, do you say that LZW compression is giving the SAME quality in all ways, as an uncompressed file? Sorry guys, I get frustrated here - is it ONLY Photoshop that wants to give me what I need? Don't know if I should scream or cry - I don't want to laugh. Me who consider Dali as a surrealist, but here image editing software is sitting on surrealism throne.

Thank you Mike, that was important - and frustrating info

Great to hear your opinion, but I usually get sceptical when people paint their views in black and white. I know lots of downsides with Painter, but for ME it's the one that works best for my way of working. When I worked on large canvases with acrylic paint, I had friends working with oil paint (of course) - but I never told them that it was shit painting they were working with. I usually used radiator brushes, but I never said fine artist brushes was shit. We all have our preferences, and they are not always alike - but as long as it fits our artistic expression - who should bother. I have used more painting programs than I can remember - including those you mention - but none of them worked for me. So why don't we share our experience, but stay away from downgrading tools others work with - and PhotoShop which you also mention, well I personally never liked its options for painting. As soon as I find a new painting program, I try it - I still have a desire to find the ultimate tool - but until then I prefer my Painter (now 2019). I respect your opinion, but pushing down other peoples preferences is not the way to welcome new members in a forum - or? I hope this doesn't reflect an attitude here ... for Ryan Church, that's so totally on the other side of the visual universe I work in, and I state that not because he work with Photoshop - but because he don't have an artistic expression that I find interesting (illustration, not art in my world). But as long as many like his work, that's great for him and them (-:

I see your point Gabriel, but allow me to add some facts? There are many good painting programs around, as Krita and other useful programs, but as per today, the raster-based Corel Painter is in its own league. It's used as the primary software in academies of art and other high-level art education. So everything is great then? Not exactly, when I should edit my artwork, I have tried to use Corel's PaintShop, but as the files of my artwork should be the best level for print, I have the colour profile in Painter as 'Adobe RGB 1989'. Still, PaintShop doesn't support Adobe RGB, only sRGB which only give around 70% of the colours in the Adobe RGB profile. Further, PaintShop doesn't have the option of putting the colour depth to 16-bit (well, now I just explained why I use Affinity Photo and not PaintShop). I have worked with photographers since 1986 even if the art industry told me not to do so (photography was not the high end of art they told me). Also for the large art project, I had in 1989 under the patronage of UNESCO in Paris - one part of the job was to choose film for the photographers (as we got the film sponsored as well). Since then photography has gone digital, and today it's hard to find a photographer not working digitally. We, the artists have been far slower going digital, but recently more of us are moving into the digital sphere. I started painting with digital tools in 2006, and it's many years since I worked on a large canvas. So to get ahead of this development I see two options: Either Affinity get the option of importing rif files - or Affinity develops an own raster-based Painter. From what I have seen so far, I would be very ready to switch to a Painter alternative from Affinity. The name is easy - Affinity Painter (-:

Thank you Gabriel, I don't have the total picture of the forum yet, so that's highly appreciated.

Hi, I'm not a photographer although I have worked a lot with great photographers in larger as smaller art projects. I say this as I find Affinity an excellent tool for me, just after a short time using the program. I also understand that the majority of users will be photographers, but it does serve as an essential help for me as an artist as well. My primary tool is Corel Painter, and Affility will for me work as it's right hand. For me it would be a significant advantage if I could import Corel Painter rif files into Affinity - so I ask you if anyone knows if this is an option the developing team of Affinity consider?

Thank you Fixx, then I stick with tif as that is my end product.

Corel Painter is my drawing/painting program coming initially from a world with large canvases and acrylic paint. Meaning that my original artwork is no longer a canvas with paint, but a digital file - and sold as a tif file. My question here is how - in Affinity, can I get the best quality from a Painter riff file to a tif file? As long as I can't open a riff file directly in Affinity (yet at least), how should I preserve the best quality for high-quality printing when converting the riff to tif? Should I save the original riff to tif inside Painter, and then put correct colour dept inside Affinity, or should I convert to a psd file in Painter, open the psd in Affinity and then convert it to a tif file? I'm new to Affinity, so is there anyone who knows something about this situation, who use Painter - or know the best solution here? Would highly appreciate help and experience here (-: PS - Adobe Photoshop is not an option, I refuse first of all the subscription setup. Corel Paintshop is not an option either as I can't work in 'Adobe RGB 1989', just sRGB which is not good enough for my purpose. So I'm thrilled to find Affinity, but need advises from you who is more experienced with Affinity than me.

Alfred, I used the link-button, next time I will just paste the URL - simple is better (-:

Thanks Leigh I will go through both, but I already found something that make my life more easy. I'm not a photographer, but one of these bloody artists - we are so lazy, so I just moved to digital some ten years ago (and now I just do digital paintings). But then, when I sell a limited edition artwork, I give the one who buy digital files the originals - and that is the digital file (both tiff and jpg), each individually signed and numbered (directly digitally with my wacom pen of course) - and my painting/drawing program is Corel Painter. As the artwork is made digital, the original artwork is of course the digital file and the buyer get the rights to use it as s/he likes: - for a print, on wallpaper, on tiles, on a t-shirt or whatever - all under a creative commons license. In addition to the files, the creative commons licenses, buyers get a certificate. With Affinity Photo it's now easy to control colour depth (bit), check again that the colour profile is Adobe RGB 1989, and so forth - and in addition I fill out the certificate in writer, convert to pdf, put it up in Affinity, sign the certificate, and export it again as pdf. Did a test for this some hours ago, and I attach the example-certificate here. So this start of great (-: digiseed_certificate_example2.pdf

Alfred, that was just great to see again - so what we gonna do then? Disney+Dali? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8ffgDbM80 Ok, and I have to find out how I can insert the video as you did Alfred - but there is a time for nearly everything (-:

Well found the answers myself (patting my back) Tested the trial for a few hours Now I paid and setting it up It work, so what should I do now? (-: