Jump to content

Dazzler

Members
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dazzler


  1. 31 minutes ago, GarryP said:

    If you have things that are to be used across different documents then Assets are probably a better bet than Symbols.
    However, assets don’t have the ‘clone’ functionality of Symbols.
    You could keep them as Assets but convert one or more to Symbols in each document where you need the symbol ‘clone’ functionality.

    Note: I don’t think it should be possible to add symbols to assets – making them some kind of ‘global symbol’ – as changes to a symbol in one document could inadvertently change the structure of other documents when they are reopened. That sounds like it could cause a lot of grief.

    I've just tried this out. So, you can have a symbol and make it an asset, and it still behaves like a symbol after you drag it into a document, but it looks like the symbol synchronisation is limited to the document - changing the symbol in a document doesn't have any effect on the one in the assets panel. I actually think that's probably the best behaviour. Like you said Garry, you wouldn't want to make changes in one document that affect things in another.


  2. I presume this is Designer?

    You can do this using the align tools as you mentioned. Just select the top three nodes (the apex and then the nodes on each side of it, using the shift key to select multiple nodes) then use the alignment tool and choose  'Space horizontally', using 'selection bounds' as the Align to setting. That will centre the top point to the two side ones.


  3. One thing you can try is to use the export persona to export. I find this can give a different result sometimes.
    For example I did a quick test where I added a mask in Photo to a layer, exported as PNG using the export option and it came into Photoshop as a white background with no transparency. However, if  switch to the export persona, then choose the layer with the mask and create a slice from it, then export the slice as a PNG, then bring that into Photoshop I see it with transparency.

    If you need to make a mask for the transparent areas this can be done easily by using the Select > Alpha Range > Select Partially Transparent. Then invert this using Select > Invert Pixel Selection, then click on the Mask Layer icon on the bottom of the layers panel to apply this as a mask to your layer. This doesn't come into photoshop as an alpha channel though (you just get the transparency built into the original layer), so not sure if that's an achievable from Photo, as Photo doesn't use channels in quite the same way as Photoshop.


  4. 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


  5. 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.


  6. 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.
     


  7. 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.


  8. 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.


  9. 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!
     


  10. 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.


  11. 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.


  12. 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?


  13. 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.


  14. 16 minutes ago, R C-R said:

    I just did a quick check & I apologize for the fuzzy jpeg screenshot, but this is what I am talking about:

    1830137607_blueedge.jpg.de3e6627257c0d90699ccc6a82518fd7.jpg

    When I compare that to the 3 individual channel views, I don't see enough overlap to explain why it is there in the All Channels view.

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...

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.