Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

Smee Again

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Smee Again

  1. True. Part of the misinformation involves allowing a product to go live with parts being purposely 'mislabeled' thus causing the newbies to think that those who actually know what they are talking about to be labeled as 'troublemakers. I've been treated as such numerous times in this thread as well as others related to this subject. Well, by the time this gets fixed (if it's ever fixed) I will have been dead and gone for quite some time. Cancer should finish its job by very early 2022. Just one more example of silly me expecting someone to actually be able to do what they promise. As soon as things get tougher than expected, change the goals or expectations of the mark. Promises of defeating cancer were lies, and they knew it. Promises of a correctly functioning high end photo editor were similarly nothing more than prevarications. Not my problem any longer. Be well folks . . . the alternative sucks.
  2. Actually, the ground work is already there. In the adjustment layer called "Lens Filter" there is a slider called "Optical Density" (which had been called "perceptual fill").
  3. Values in your buttons are Red / Green / Blue / ALPHA . . . NOT fill. Not upset or being mean in previous post, it's just that everyone here insists that ALPHA is the same as fill, and it isn't. If it were, why would Adobe have both an OPACITY slider and FILL slider for each layer? That would be quite silly. No, they are both there because they behave DIFFERENTLY. As much as someone may want to eat an apple, no matter how many oranges they pick up and peel, not one of them will ever be an apple. FILL and OPACITY are two different values.
  4. L A Y E R O P A C I T Y W I L L N E V E R B E T H E S A M E A S L A Y E R F I L L ! ! ! Until you can wrap your head around that, the only thing you can do (as Serif did by using incorrect nomenclature) is muddy the water as the above post has done. Incomplete sentences that leave the reader hanging (more than one). Who or what is/are "Lavis"? Layer fill affects the amount of color --- NOT THE ALPHA VALUE OF THE COLOR --- on that layer, and only that layer. When used in conjunction with any of the 8 special blend modes, the way it alters the color is changed by raising or lowering the amount of fill. This cannot EVER be duplicated by adjusting the alpha (opacity) of the layer as it doesn't change the layer's FILL (quantity, not alpha). Opacity only changes the alpha of the layer. Blend-if only adjusts the alpha of portions of the image. ONLY LAYER FILL does what I am speaking about.
  5. None of those relate to layer fill. They give you different ways to achieve a certain color but . . . not one of them relates to the amount of color (not to be confused with opacity unless a labrador retreiver is the exact same thing as an oak tree) you see (fill). Try to think of it as if you were a painter: a "wash" puts less pigment on the canvass, bit does not reduce the actual opacity of the pigment. It is still as it was before the wash, there are only fewer molecules of pigment, the molecules of pigment retain their individual opacity. Basically, you have reduced the population of molecules of pigment, but each molecule maintains its original opacity.
  6. Still not working here . . . unless it's a video of a polar bear in a snow storm. If so, perfection.
  7. Thanks, but figured out the problem shortly after posting. Windows 11. Computer went wacky, affinity decided that <ctrl><+> meant I wanted to rotate 90 degrees counter clockwise. Choosing brush selected shadows. Restarted computer, all is working correctly now.
  8. Affinity photo will not import this macro. Has something in the program changed? I've noticed that quite a few of my macros no longer work since installing the software on my new computer.
  9. Will it not take individual images (jpg, png, bmp, etc.)? If it is only taking video, your resolution will most likely be very limited and this will affect any images you use. Corel has a video editor which will allow you to export individual images from video. You might consider it if all you get are avi files.
  10. Well, after doing some digging, I can assure you that Serif's developers DO know how to implement this as they have hidden a stripped down version inside of one of their "adjustment layers" . . . it just needs to be freed up so that it can help with a color grading shortcoming that the software has. "Fill" is basically the optical density of a color layer. The "Optical Density" slider is available inside of "Lens Filter" but is crippled by not allowing anything but a single solid color layer to be added. Doesn't work perfectly (limited compatibility with the 8 special blend modes), but shows that they do understand the principle and (hopefully) will soon address this shortcoming of the software.
  11. Recent digging into the software has revealed to me that the basic idea / structure is not only already in place, but in use in an obscure place: It is in the adjustment layers and labeled as "Lens Filter". The filter has a slider named "Optical Density" and it behaves like layer fill, but cannot be accessed unless the "restrictive" adjustment layer is used. This only will allow for single color fill, no gradients or gradient maps will work. Take a look at that adjustment layer and see what you think.
  12. To the developers: Layer fill, which provides some really nice adjustment possibilities (and works best with the "Special Blend Modes") should not be something too difficult. In your "Lens Filter" adjustment layer, you already have a slider for "Optical Density" . . . which is, in effect, not much different from having a "Layer Fill" option. The only shortcoming is that it is attached to this layer which will not allow for gradient filters or gradient maps to have their "layer fill" adjusted, which will never work by just allowing "opacity adjustment" for layers. I've posted numerous videos explaining the difference, and since you have the"optical density" slider already available in the "Lens Filter" adjustment layer, it shouldn't be such a great stretch to adapt to a "layer fill" for individual layers in Affinity Photo. Also, please rename the "Layer Fill" button in the FX panel to something MORE APPROPRIATE. It confuses newbies and those who do not want to take the time to understand what is what. Thanks!
  13. Apparently you are affiliated with Serif based on our previous contact, so I will tread lightly. Sir, I'm not the only one with a need for this tool, which is not unlike the "optical density" slider in the "Lens Filter" adjustment layer except that it would apply to individual layers without being tied to the "Lens Filter" adjustment layer. This slider works very much like the "Layer Fill" (not the misnamed one in FX panel, but more like actual layer fill) in Photoshop. Problem is, it doesn't appear the value it would add to the software is of no interest to the developers. Sorry but: If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and is waterproof . . . I just can't believe it's a turtle, no matter who says so.
  14. Love me some open wheel F1 racing! Don't get to see much of it here in Arkansas. Indy Cars have run and hid from open wheel racing. Nothing quite like two open wheel racers at 150+ side by side . . . exciting stuff. When I raced simulators, was my favorite!
  15. Previous topics ignored, so thought this might be the place to address it. Giving the "opacity fill" name to the "FX" has created confusion and even some rude comments by myself in reply to some similarly rude comments from persons confused by the incorrect nomenclature. Therefore, the "fill opacity" should rather say simply "OPACITY" as that is ALL IT IS. If you place text or shape there, and you can adjust the OPACITY. To put the confusing name of "FILL" simply because it regulates the OPACITY OF THE FILL OF THE OBJECT is not the best idea. Rather misleading.
  16. Very nice job of cleaning up a couple of the problems I have run across on occasion. Thanks. I would jump up and down with joy for many of these and other fixes, but still fighting with the program being hamstrung by the lack of layer fill (which so many confuse with opacity because the nomenclature used in the "FX" panel is incorrect. While some users have devised workarounds that "almost" address the problem, it would be really nice to see some effort in that direction.
  17. Ooops! Medication clouded mind, didn't realize the humor and deliberate errors. Even funnier when I caught it. Ignore my PM. I thought you had urined your post.
  18. @Alfred . . . proofreading for accuracy is indeed its own reward. Refer to the second #6. Is it really? Cialis or the blue pill? Honest mistake I'm sure, or Freudian slip, but still funny. Be Well.
  19. Well, "if\'n ya don't unnerstan then ya don't unnerstan!" (sorry, last week been cooped up in hospital in Arkansas, and you know, things rub off). The fact that I did not remember who posted the sorta close workaround doesn't mean I'm mean, it simply means that my 64 year old brain didn't remember who or even in which thread the work around was submitted. Better to lack a deep understanding of "complex Algebra" (should algebra actually be capitalized? Don't want to offend). BTW, the best part of your post is the last paragraph. Pot, meet kettle. AFFINITY rep has admitted that their nomenclature was incorrect, but apparently has removed the post. Believe it was MEB, by why trust me . . . between chemo and pain pills no telling what you might get today.
  20. Layer FX "says" fill, but means "opacity" as per a rep from Affinity. Response was not rude, but rather an observation that the individual did not understand the difference between "FX fill" and ACTUAL "layer fill". According to your response, you are not interested in "layer fill" but rather "FX fill." That's cool, but don't interject that I have been rude by pointing out the truth. To be honest, I know you are not familiar with "layer fill" based on your statement: Your statement shows that you have NEVER used the "layer fill", but rather only the "FX fill". Comparing Apples and Toyotas. Both may be red, but there is no comparison when you're hungry or when you need to get somewhere. Apple doesn't carry you down the road, and have you ever tried to eat a Japanese car? "Layer fill" has nothing to do with the opacity of text or the effects applied to text or shapes. If you took the time to view the videos I have posted here you would see the difference. Why Affinity has chosen not to include "layer fill" as an option isn't something I can answer . . . maybe they don't know how, or the implementation of this feature could interfere with some other part of the software which I am not aware of. What I do know is that I need the function for some of my projects, but it just isn't available with Affinity Photo . . . although it really should be (IMO).
  21. Isn't that the one where you stored your software on and read from a cassette tape player . . . or was it the Commodore 64?
  22. When I returned last evening, I was unable to get the tablet to work with the settings I had been using before going to hospital. No one else has access to this computer and I did not change any settings . . . however, after dinking around with the software I had to make a change in the settings of Affinity Photo in order to make it work once again. I had to CHANGE the input method to "Windows Ink" in order to make it work again. Not sure what is going on, however, it is usually a good bet when a setting like this "changes" on its own, it has more to do with Micro$$loth's Windows than anything else. I finally round filed my X-Fi sound card because with each update, Bill's boys would overwrite the manufacturer's drivers with their own. Problem is, the driver they loaded did nothing but blast a sawtooth waveform at max volume until I could uninstall Micro$$loth's drivers and reinstall Creative's drivers. A royal pain in the rear, Didn't keep it for DRM workaround ("What you hear" drives Bill and his minions crazy because you can make a perfect copy of anything you can play over your speakers) but rather for its MIDI instruments. Had a huge collection of MIDI files that it would reproduce with near studio quality audio that was like listening to a live band, Problem solved, but fotgot to note it here,
  23. I have a Huion 610 tablet that was working fine before my recent hospital stay. I come back tonight, with a job to do, and suddenly APH refuses to recognize my pen which is using the same driver it was when it was working. It still works with every other non-serif program exactly as it did before I was hospitalized. Went through a bunch of hoops with Corel's Paintshop Pro which is part of why I dropped their software and came back to Serif (I"m the guy who finally got this -- and other tablets -- to finally work with PSP). Where would I look to find out what has changed, since I am using the same drivers (no changes since install over a month ago with the purchase of a new computer) that I was using when it was working?
  24. Why not try "blend if" (the little gear at the upper right of the layers panel) to get the same effect with the fog?
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | 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.