Jump to content

Dazzler

Members
  • Content count

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dazzler

  1. Just wondering now whether that setting is initially dependant on the document type you choose? That would make a lot of sense.
  2. If I remember correctly, you can just click on the pixel button on the toolbar to unselect it (it’s a toggle button). Pixel based preview is a very useful thing for people who work with web or where the output will eventually be rasterised. It enables you to draw assets that don’t have that fuzzy ‘half a pixel’ thing going on and is one of the great features of Designer, which may be why they have it enabled as default.
  3. CDP I know exactly what you mean, and I don't think there is an exact equivalent in AF Photo. However, if you think about what that actually did in Photoshop, it basically just set the white point to wherever you clicked (or the black point if you chose the other picker). If you add a levels adjustment layer in AF Photo and then alt-click on the sliders for white point and black point it does this thing where it shows what items on the screen are going to be affected (in a funky bright colour preview), so you can use that to bring the white point down until you see things in the image start to change, then just pull it back up a bit and release - you'll see what I mean when you try it. Normally, you'll see a peak in the histogram where the mass of background colour is and you'll need to pull it down to the middle of there somewhere, or just to the left to ensure every bit of background colour is white (bear in mind this will affect the image tones - just as it did when you used the pipette in PS).
  4. Yes, there are three methods of masking, one is the 'Rasterise to mask', which is pretty much equivalent to the Photoshop way of doing it. The second is by nesting layers in other layers. This is more interesting and would be the way to go if you want the mask to be a vector shape rather than a rasterised image. The parent layer becomes the mask and the inner layers are then masked by it. The third is using the blend mode set to erase. Not so keen on that way of thinking, but it's there if you need it. It looks like in your case the mask is a solid flattened image with a background colour containing a greyscale image map, so you'd have to use the 'Rasterise to mask' method.
  5. I wouldn’t worry about it. If you’ve been doing it for years and there’s never been a problem then you wouldn’t realise. Really, the problem lies with the software companies where no strict standard has been maintained. I’m a web dev, and as any web dev will tell you, consistency and strict rules are absolutely essential to being able to provide a consistent experience for the user. If there is no agreement at the start of new technology then it goes off in all directions and then you find yourself putting five css rules into a style sheet instead of just the one, because the browser vendors all decided to implement the same thing in different ways. It’s crazy stupid. But that’s the nature of cutting edge technology, where it’s expensive to bring new technology into places like printers, so workarounds happen to allow new technology to talk to old technology. Ultimately a tiff file should really just be a tiff file, and it should fit the exact specification of a tiff file, not have some extra hidden data stuffed in there. But now it’s too late, it’s already happened, and so if you stop supporting odd files where things have been abused, then suddenly you find yourself with a load of files that no longer work as expected with certain software. Exactly the same with the web, where you can’t suddenly make all browsers behave the same without breaking a ton of old legacy content. So we continue to adapt everything to accept these formats, and so the problem lingers on. Ho hum, fun and games!
  6. Chris, I think the thing that can be learned from this, is it’s not really your fault, file formats sometimes get skewed to suit certain situations, and it looks like that’s s what’s been going on. So we’ve ended up with a file which actually has two methods of storing it’s transparency. That’s kind of dumb, but I guess there are reasons somewhere along the line, probably due to compatibility. It must mean however that the files are larger than they need to be.
  7. Thanks Walt, the bit I was doing different was embedding the images rather than linking ... got it now! I realise there is transparency in the original file, as you say, but is that transparency coming from the extra psd data rather than the true tiff part of the file? Being that AFPhoto can open PSD files it may be? Certainly looking at the files within my explorer window the ones that are working have a transparent background in the thumbnail, whereas the ones that don't look solid white. They ALL open in Photoshop and AF Photo with transparency intact, but the ones with the white backgrounds don't come through with transparency when placed into a document, however a TIFF file that has the transparency checked upon save does work perfectly with the place image tool in publisher. So I maintain that the original file was saved with that option not checked, and it's the extra psd information that is where any transparency is coming from. Would be nice for it to work the same across the board though. But if the place tool is reading it like a true tiff and the open is reading that hidden psd data then it would explain it.
  8. Thanks Patrick. So surely this is the answer then? The original seagull file has been saved out of Photoshop (or whatever) without the transparency being checked? Any ideas about why I can't see the edit image button? I've tried doing all sorts, changing personas etc. but I just can't get it to appear? Should it be there for me? As I say, I have all three apps installed, and can happily switch between the personas. Is there a reset for the workspace somewhere that I can use?
  9. Ok, so upon further investigation, saving out from Photoshop if I don't check the save transparency option (below the compression settings dialogue), then the file comes in with a white background into publisher when placed. However that same exported (supposedly no transparency) file can be opened back up in Photoshop and has the transparency still. Which is a bit weird isn't it?
  10. Oh this is weird. I have all three apps installed, but on my publisher I don't see that Edit Image button like you have?!! Is that something you've added in somehow? I do have the replace image button and the surrounding tools look to be the same, but just no Edit Image button. But looking at the tiff scenario, if I open the seagull image in Photoshop or Affinity Paint I have the transparency. If I place it in Publisher, no transparency. If I save it as a tiff from AFPhoto it opens fine with it's transparency by placing it in Publisher just as you would expect. If I open the original in Photoshop, then save as a tiff, and then place in publisher then still no transparency, yet it still opens in Photoshop ok.
  11. I'm also learning the table styling. The help docs are actually quite decent for explaining how this works, however the second line reads 'Affinity Publisher comes with an impressive selection of pre-defined table formats'. Well I've got one! is there somewhere to find more?! I've done a quick scout around the program folders and can't find anything, so I'm thinking the impressive selection may actually just be one! Not to worry, it's fairly painless to create more! The key thing is realising that within the edit table format panel, the cell formats in the centre column are applied to the table diagram on the top left, and that you can adjust the arrows in that diagram to select fixed areas on the edges, everything else gets repeated. Then the right hand column of the dialogue is everything to do with the currently selected cell format. Not sure how all this compares to other software as I don't normally use page layout software in my daily duties - just had to get publisher to complete the set really and experience the magic link between packages which is excellent.
  12. Dazzler

    New Document From Clipboard

    This was one of those tiny features that actually made me realise there were people 'thinking outside the box' at Serif. It's a fairly easy transition from Photoshop to Affinity Photo, but don't assume stuff will be the same, as there are a few things that sound similar but are actually slightly different or better thought out. I'm still transitioning myself, as a very long time Photoshop user (since the very first version of Photoshop), it's easy to find yourself trying to do things in a way that is engraved into your workflow, but I've been going through many online videos for Affinity Photos, just going over basic features, that I thought I knew like the back of my hand, only to find it's done slightly differently (and often better) in Affinity Photo.
  13. It may be worth investigating some alternative workflow options available. If I understand correctly, you should be able to select then paste (as a separate layer rather than a new document), then label the layer with your intended filename. Once you have separated all the images to layers you can switch to the export persona, select all your layers and create slices (one button click), then hit the export all button (deselect the first slice to avoid exporting the orginal back out), choose a folder and you should get all the slices as individual files in the format you choose in the export settings. Alternatively, you could just save them all as afphoto files for speed then do a batch file conversion on them using the batch tool, selecting a new format.
  14. I think it would be nice to be able to store distort equations in a similar way to the procedural texture equations preset panel. At the moment it seems the only way to store distort equations is to either jot them down in another app somehwere, or store them in a macro. When you store them in a macro you lose the equation, so you can't go back to it, which is kind of annoying. I've currently got my equations building up a text document, but working like that doesn't fit the nice workflow that the other features have. Also, with the procedural textures panel if you accidentally apply before storing the preset you lose the equation, would it be possible to have a persistent edit buffer that populates the dialogue with the last equation you used, rather than it opening with a blank panel each time? It's really easy to spent time messing about to get an interesting pattern and then pressing apply to see the pattern properly (with the anti-aliasing in place), before saving it as a preset ... then it's gone, you've lost all that effort!
  15. +1, that would be an awesome addition. AP doesn't seem to have the exact equivalent of displacement maps at present. The displacement filter seems to be more of a texturing thing rather than a mapped lightness direction to amount of shift in the x/y direction. Would be great to be able to pull values from a map (layer or image) for use in an equation. Maybe similar to the sources panel where you select a source and give it a variable name that could then be pulled into an equation? That way multiple maps could be used. I've been doing a lot of experimenting with equations and they are very powerful, and I love the way you can record them and expose the controls in a macro, however when used directly the sliders are smooth and instant, but in a macro they seem to wait for you to release before reacting, which makes it much harder to get the correct adjustment. Also, when using distortion equations directly you can click on the canvas and it relocates the centre point, whereas when recorded in a macro this doesn't seem to work.
  16. Good to hear embedded font support is something that might appear in the future. It's one thing that is keeping me glued to my adobe subscription (luckily my company pays for that - whereas my affinity products I bought personally because they are affordable!) I have a workflow for a particular job, where I need to make a set of thumbnail images from a batch of pdf files (40+), showing just the opening cover (page 1) of each. So the other thing that would be useful is to be able to somehow select a single page on the batch job input dialogue rather than it automatically open them all up and output it as a contact sheet of pages. Apart from that, I'm really very impressed with Affinity Photo and what it has to offer. Haven't found much else that it can't cope with so far.
  17. Could that be down to the font size not allowing the words to fit in the space to the sides of the image? It works fine for me doing some quick tests here with a circle (image area) cut out of a rectangle and then inserting filler text. I can edit the circle using the node tool to distort it without any unexpected results.
  18. Alternatively, any shape can become a text frame so you can simply draw a shape avoids and runs around the picture then put your text into it by clicking on the 'Frame Text Tool' then clicking on the shape. You can then refine the shape using the normal editing tools, after adding your text, to make the text fit nicely around the shape.
  19. Yes I tried it out and the effect becomes a raster, so no good for export really unless you are going to raster format, but still a great function to know about for speed/quick proofing etc. I'm confused - what do you mean by 'I can't have my blank space'? Maybe you're missing out the 'expand stroke' bit? That is necessary to convert the stroke to it's own shape. It's that shape that you duplicate and subtract from the shapes surrounding your original object. You do also need to subtract from your orginal shape because a stroke normally sits over part of the fill, so if you remove the stroke the object gets larger by half of the stroke width (or smaller that what originally was with the stroke by half the stroke width!). You don't need to make anything transparent with this method - you are simply cutting shapes away from other shapes.
  20. Why would you ... I don't think it's optional in other software is it? Anyway, I had the same issue, and glad it's there in the options to be changed, as the default behaviour seems counter-intuitive/confusing to me and can easily lead to things being slightly distorted when you're actually trying to constrain them.
  21. Oooh that's kind of nice! Any idea what happens upon export etc to a vector format? Does it retain it's erase state?
  22. If the above answer is not what you meant (I think you might mean something slightly different, because making the stroke transparent will reveal the shape behind again), then there is another way involving subtracting shapes. First make sure the shape with the stroke is converted to outlines. Then under the Layer menu, select 'expand stroke'. This will make the stroke into an object of it's own. You can then duplicate this outline object and use the subtract tool to subtract it from any shapes that it overlaps - I say duplicate because you'll also need to subtract it from it's original fill shape to maintain the 'outline' thickness. That will give you a completely transparent space that was the thickness of the original stroke. You'll need to duplicate the outline shape for each shape that you need to subtract it from, as the subtract method removes the shape that is being subtracted.
×

Important Information

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.