Smee Again

Sorry, but this 63 year old man is very confused, and the following question is in no way critical of the OP and his image. Rather it is both an acceptance of my ignorance, and an acknowledgment of my being chemically altered by my chemo. (A short pause while I plant tongue firmly in cheek . . . ) When did symbols replace words in poetry? Also, is there a book I can buy to translate this? 🙃

This is from experience with inconsistent PDF using text effects and "text on path" with designer: Export the finished page as a graphic (jpg, png, etc.) then import that graphic into your document. Otherwise, text on path will cause more headaches than you can handle because each time the PDF loads on a different device, it will present a different appearance to the user.

Like the coffee image . . . been to the Cafe du Monde back home in New Orleans -- but the last time was before 1980.

They want you to download and tell the artist thanks then tell them where you used it. Apparently they can't conceive that someone might just use their images for experimentation. Same from pexels and pixabay lately.

Been having the same issue when printing from Publisher. I use to create photo business cards in small lots. Always a brown area between cards both horizontally and vertically. I finally gave up and went back to Page Plus for this project.

Add a blank pixel layer instead of a fill layer, and all will work as expected. A "fill layer" apparently behaves a bit differently than what you are expecting. Tried both ways, the blank pixel layer is the better way to go if you are concerned about the order of filters. Otherwise, I would just stick them in a group and be done with it if I needed to use a fill layer.

Looks like someone broke out the Serif Montage disk and had a go. I still have that disk, came free with something I ordered about 10 years ago.

What in the world happened to CR2 suport??? Canon T7 raw files are washed out when loaded into the developer profile, and cannot be recovered to anything usable. When I shoot, I save a RAW (CR2) and a JPG of each shot. Just easier that way so that "snapshots" can be quickly edited while I have a RAW image in case I have plans for the image. Today is the first time I have been able to work on some of my raw images since the update. Raw images load almost without color. So, thought maybe it is my camera that has recorded the image incorrectly. I open up Faststone and look at the raw and jpg side by side . . . color is the same in both images. It is only when I load the raw image that it is washed out. Anyone else having problems with this??? EDIT: The new version had 32bit preview turned on and it was as if that laid a grey mask over the entire image. Turned off, problem solved.

BTW, instead of a "fill layer" of a solid color, you might try using a "gradient map". I tried it this morning and worked great on the image I was toying with. You may just want to adjust the opacity of the gradient map a bit. I added a bit of visibility to the gradient map layer, your mileage may vary.

While not equal to layer fill, it does give some interesting results. Perhaps with some tweaking . . . maybe it will be serviceable. Biggest problem with the method is that it is so easy to accidentally add color to the group layer or change the opacity of the color fill layer. Might just be me, started chemo today and some synapses are not firing and all I want to do is sleep . . . but the possibility of a work around has helped me pass the time. Thanks. Just out of curiosity, how did you figure this out? What made you think to add a neutral color? BTW, toying around with the neutral color also gives some interesting results, as will playing with the blend mode of the fill color.

Hmm .. . Hard mix limits the number of colors, with "Layer Fill" around 15% to 30% it would allow more colors to show through. Personally (as I would be trying to improve the image in the eyes of a customer) I would have tried something like "Vivid Light", "Linear Burn", or even ""Linear Light" which do not limit the number of colors. The goal for me is use "Layer Fill" to give the color the "nudge" it needs to enhance the image rather than overwhelming it, as happens with "Layer Opacity". Now I need some Charlie Parker tunes.

Hm. To me it seems that it actually does, with the exception of Photoshop's "magical 8" blend modes. Once more, comparing tanks and daisies. There are two possibilities: 1: You are completely unable to comprehend any of the conversation that is ongoing here concerning the difference between "Fill Opacity" and "Layer Fill". One makes the circles disappear while the other enhances photographs by the way it interacts with the special blend modes and some other items you may work with. or 2. You are just being facitious and trying to start an argument. If it's the former, I feel sorry that you are not able to comprehend the difference. If it's the latter, perhaps the mods need to encourage you to back off. Be well.

Comparing tanks and daisies again. Would you like to see "layer fill" as compared to "layer opacity"? Don't skip ahead, but do watch the videos. This is not about placing shapes, adding shadows, and making the shape disappear while keeping the shadow. Open an image - any image. Add a "New Fill Layer" (MENU: Layer/New Fill Layer). You do this to "color grade" an image. (other ways, but this is the simplest). Change the New Fill Layer's blend mode to one of the 8 special blend modes. Now, look at how awful it appears. This is why you need "layer fill" and not just "layer opacity". Watch these two short videos: The Easiest Way to Get Rich Skin Tones in Photoshop The Hard Mix Blend Mode in Photoshop This is the "Layer Fill" this thread is about, not about drawing shapes and making them disappear. Just how many photos have you seen in galleries that have shapes like stars, clouds, or squares drawn over the subject? We're not talking about drawn shapes, but color grading. A BIG TOOL is missing here that would make this software so much more valuable to persons like me.

Ok. For you guys and / or gals thinking that fill and opacity are the same thing, or who think that a similar result can be achieved by using blendif, I do need to add a bit of clarity to our discussion. Layer fill and layer opacity behave the same in most blend modes. There are, however, 8 blend modes where these do NOT behave the same. Those are: Color Burn Linear Burn Color Dodge Linear Dodge (Add) Vivid Light Linear Light Hard Mix Difference. You will also find that "linear light" (in certain circumstances) likewise works better with layer fill than with opacity as shown in the video in this post above.

One click and adjust a slider to the correct level for your image . . . or one hour of trying to match the results by playing with blendif, and then the resulting frustration of little or no success. I know first hand because I had an image that opacity just would not give me the desired results and I had this brainstorm 6 months ago to try blendif to get there. It don't work

The latest video in this post uses the fill opacity on a shape with a shadow. He makes the shape disappear and the shadow remain. Of course, we all know a battle ready M1 Abrams tank is exactly the same thing as a daisy growing in a field. By getting the nomenclature wrong on the FX panels, it causes a lot of confusion as to exactly what "layer fill" actually is.

Nope, isn't the same. Rasterize that shape effect, then try it again. Show me what you find. Then, on a separate layer, fill the layer with the color of your choice and place it below your rasterized shape. Now, go to the blend modes and choose "vivid light" for the layer with your shape which should be on top. Duplicate that layer.Both shape layers should be set to the "vivid light" blend mode --- this makes everything equal. Now, on the bottom shape (not the bottom layer) set it at 50% opacity.. On the top shape choose fx and set the fill opacity to 50%. Unfortunately, you will find in both cases the opacity is EXACTLY THE SAME. What you are seeing with the shape layer is simply removing the opacity (alpha is being adjusted, fill is still 100%) of the shape. It does not affect the shadow because when you reduce the alpha to 0 is is transparent. In PHOTOGRAPHY, that simply DOES NOT WORK. You have 8 special blend modes (vivd light is one) so that when you place a fill layer or paint or anything else, you get different results with opacity vs fill. Most times you want to use fill, and NOT opacity. Look at the posted videos and you will see that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the results of opacity vs fill.

Bump.

You might try this tutorial for Affinity. There is a free macro for Affinity included.

As always, you are right -- haven't used laptop for Affinity since pandemic started and my "Internet Sales Manager" job ended at the Toyota dealership. However, you still will need to use the <alt> or <shift> keys to get an image.

Windows . . . use <alt> + <print screen> for active monitor (last one you had activity on) or <shift> + <print screen) to capture all screens <Print screen> by itself does nothing.

. . . or maybe death by pizza

Sorry, misread and thought someone else was comparing to PSP.

I only export the keepers myself. However, if that is the case, PSP has an excellent macro feature that would allow you to batch export. If space isn't a problem that is the way to go. If space is a problem, you can batch export to PSD / batch delete PSP.

As a former long time user of PSP, (x3 - 2019 -- always PSP Ultimate) what I do is export the PSP images as PSD images. Then they will import to Affinity with all layers intact. Dumped PSP when their TOS changed, limiting me to 2 computers (of which 1 must be a laptop). Price is much more than Affinity Photo (3 times as much right now with the ongoing Affinity sale). Is Affinity Photo perfect? No, but it is way ahead of PSP in quality. Hope this helps.