Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dazzler

  1. Something else I've thought of that goes with the previous idea ... you could use a bitmap fill (using the gradient tool then selecting bitmap in the context bar dropdown) on a couple of rectangles (one for highlights, one for shadows) to create a grid of stitches without duplicating them all separately.
  2. Here's a couple of files to show the idea I'm getting at. There's a single cross stich file with the original cross stich in it (with layers etc.) which I quickly created in Photo using a couple of rounded rectangles and a background square. This would ideally be duplicated up into a grid before exporting as a sheet of stitches for both highlights and shadows. I've also attached a test file which shows a pixellated image with the stitches exported and placed into a grouped item with the layer modes applied. This allows them to be placed over the pixellated image and create a similar effect to what you had but without having to recolour anything (I've imported a single stitch image and duplicated it here, but an entire sheet could be exported so that this could happen in one step). Obviously, I've done this super quick as a demo, and you'd need to carefully match the sizes better than I have here, but it should give you the idea. cross stitch test.afphoto cross stitch.afphoto
  3. I'm thinking you're on the right path with the pixellation, although I think rather than recolouring the stitches individually you could try using the blending modes to achieve the same effect and just use a large grid of identical stitches that overlay the colours? You may need to experiment with this, and perhaps have two layers of cross stitch pattern - one for the stitch highlights using 'screen' mode, and one for the stitch shadows using 'multiply' mode. These can then be layered over the pixellated image which will supply the colour. You'd need to ensure the stiches were the same size as the pixellation effect, so that each stitch fits into a pixellated square exactly. To remove the colour area outside of the actual stitches then you could have a white surround for the stitch on the highlights layer. It would probably be a lot easier to make the stiches using Designer as you can utilise the smart duplicate feature to create the grid of stitches a lot faster, but it should be achievable using Photo alone.
  4. Dazzler

    How is this done

    Looks like tonemapping to me, and yes you can do this in Affinity Photo very easily using the tone mapping persona - you can use the contrast and local contrast sliders to get this sort of look.
  5. If you use Chrome browser there is a great addon called Muzli (by InVision) which showcases some of the great stuff on other sites like dribble, behance etc. There's often very inspirational stuff on there.
  6. They are actually positioned correctly, it's a visual thing that happens due to anti-aliasing of the edges of the layer. To solve this, click on each of the green layers and click the cog icon at the top of the layers panel. Then in the dialogue that pops up, select the coverage map and drag the left hand point up to make a straight line across the top and it'll solve your issue.
  7. You can use the divide tool on that curves layer to end up with two separate curve layers. I think that's what you're looking for.
  8. If it's placed images you're talking about rather than actual picture frames, then make sure you're not holding down the shift key as this has the opposite effect that you might expect and allows it to lose it's original ratio rather than constrain it (There's an option for this in the preferences under the tools tab - Move Tool Aspect Constrain).
  9. Another method similar to Murfee's is to duplicate the layer you want to clip for each element in the group and nest those duplicated layers inside each item in the group so each is clipped by the item you've nested it within. You can then use the 'lock children' tickbox in the context bar to prevent them moving. that way you can move the elements around within the group and it would work in a more 'live' way. Again, not ideal but it would work.
  10. I'm not sure if there's a way to do the same thing in Photo. Here's a workaround that might help though? 1. Ctrl + click on the thumbnail on the group layer - this should give you a selection around the edges of the items in the group. 2. Select the pixel layer that you want to clip. 3. Choose Layer > New Mask Layer - This will mask the pixel layer with the selection. I know that will not be live updating thing, so if you adjust the items in the group and move them around you'd have to delete the mask and repeat the steps. It's only a few seconds of extra work though.
  11. Odd, the method I said should work, as I did exactly what I said in a new document to make sure ... worked fine. Make sure you create the artistic text first, then switch to the gradient tool (make sure it's the one from the tool bar on the left (looks a bit like a cd with a diagonal line running out of it). Garry's suggestion is equally valid, although maybe has an extra step in creating a rectangle. Clipping is simply a term used to describe a mask that cuts off some of the image. So in Garry's example there's a gradient filled rectangle, which has been placed inside the text layer (this can be tricky if you are new to Affinity, but you drag one layer into another - but depending on where the blue highlight sits when you are dragging tells you how it is going to combine those two layers - you want it to sit to the right and just below the text layer) - doing this makes the text into a clipping layer - only reveealing the gradient below where the text is.
  12. Easiest way ... 1. make your artistic text 2. Select the gradient tool in the left hand tool palette. 3. With that tool selected drag across your text to decide the angle of the gradient. 4. Choose colours at the points along the line - it starts with two but you can add new ones by clicking on the line or select existing points, then choose a colour from the colour palette. 5. Enjoy your rainbow text!
  13. To make an even more realistic shadow you can use Photo to soften the furthest parts of the shadow using Field Blur and setting two nodes within that with one node near the feet and the other at the extremes of the shadow. the node near the feet would have minimal blurring, whereas the furthest one would have more. That mimics the way that shadows are more diffuse when they are further from their source. For the job in hand it's probably better to not do this and keep the sharp edges as stylistically it fits better with the flat graphics.
  14. This is it with a black colour overlay FX and then the layer opacity (not the colour overlay opacity) set to 34%. The colour of the red comes through naturally that way and it looks more realistic.
  15. There are some great suggestions here. One thing that I often see done and disagree with though is the use of grey as a shadow colour. Unless it's for stylistic purposes, shadows are never grey - they are black with an opacity to allow the underlying colours to show through (the result may be grey if they lie over a white surface - which is presumeably why people use grey). Stronger shadows have a higher opacity, softer ones are more transparent. Using grey brings an unrealistic look. Putting a grey shadow across a black background actually lightens the black, something that doesn't happen in real life - shadows should never lighten anything.
  16. So working with three images whereby I've loaded the same image twice and then chosen a different image and put them into a stack, the median does exactly as you'd expect and disregards the image that is different. However, hiding one of the duplicated images, leaving just two images that are different seems to reveal a picture whereby some pixels are selected from one image and some from the other almost like there's some weird masking taking place (which is kind of expected to some degree). So it looks like it's choosing one or the other image to show for each pixel. How it's deciding that I'm not sure, but a true mathmatical median should be taking into account that there's an odd or even number of samples, and if it's even, taking the two middle ones and doing a mean between those to arrive at the result. Would that be useful from an imaging point of view? I'm not too sure, but it's kind of interesting what is happening - could be useful as an effect maybe?
  17. Interesting. Looking at the docs, it suggests that median removes content that is not consistent in each image - suitable for object removal and noise reduction. So I wonder if there's some extra calculations in play there that makes it more suitable for that. I expect they've taken a median calculation and expanded it to suit that purpose? I'm only guessing though. Not sure how it could really work properly with two images.
  18. The Affinity apps are excellent for web design - that's my primary use for them. Not sure I'd want the 100% default thing, but it wouldn't hurt to have as a preference tucked away somewhere.
  19. Murfee's suggestion is probably the best, but if you don't want to group you can just re-rasterise the layer once you've rotated it and it will reset the orientation of the bounding box controls.
  20. What I really like with the corner tool is that it stays 'live' so you can manipulate the points along the path afterwards and the curves adjust themselves to suit the radius in each case.
  21. Just to prove what I just said, I took the green channel view and pasted it over the combined channels and just 'un-normalised' (squashed) it down to the same size it was and you can see it's the reason that area of combined colour exists.
  22. That's the green channel's edge - the green is behind the transparent blue channel. You can clearly see it joining the green unobscured layer on each side. It's also doing the same nearer the middle. Remember that the individual channels on this are normalised to the height of the chart, so when you view the green channel it gets stretched upwards, but it's the same shape as it is in the combined view (make sure you click the fine view - it looks slightly different in course view) - just stretched.
  23. The layer checkbox just shows the histogram for the layer you have selected, so depending on what that is it may be blank, or might just be normal looking histogram. I've found an image with varying heights between the normalisation, but still my graphs match well with the levels ones. I pulled one out of unsplash using the stock function - https://unsplash.com/photos/q3o_8MteFM0?utm_source=Affinity Photo&utm_medium=referral How does that one work for you?
  24. I would refer you to R C-R's link to the cambridge tutorial in his post above. That explains a bit about it. There are some uses, mainly to detect clipping and contrast issues.
  25. Ok, on mine the graphs are hitting the top so any normalisation is having no effect so they match my composite one exactly. As for the levels histogram ... mine are matching up well - obviously my levels one is a wider window so is slighly stretched in comparison and I did click on the little exclmaimation mark in the normal histogram to make it render more accurately (if you don't do this you may see an extra spike or two that shouldn't be there as it only renders a course histogram for speed). Comparing the master to all channels or individually mine are matching as far as I can tell and my eyesight allows! Maybe there's something else at play here? You don't have the layer tickbox selected on the main histogram do you?

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. 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.