Jump to content

Dazzler

Members
  • Content count

    181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dazzler


  1. It looks like Photo to me, as you have the marching ants. So once you have your selection made, use CTRL+J or CMD+J on Mac to make the sleection into a layer. You can then deselect and move that layer around separate to everything else. However, you'll still have the flower on the original layer, so you'll need to erase it (or paint over it, maybe using the infill painting tool) from that layer otherwise you'll get a duplicate flower in your image.


  2. You may be able to do this by printing to a pdf rather than exporting to a pdf. I can do it in a quick test using the 'Microsoft Print to PDF' printer choice (I'm on on Windows). On that print driver there is an option called Model where you can select N-Up. Then I can set the printer driver to do the 2 pages etc with crops marks etc and it prints to a pdf file. Took me a little bit of messing around to line it up properly with the print area etc.


  3. This may depend on the t-shirt printing process. To do it properly the white would need to be specified as a 'special' colour so that it does actually get printed. If you think about printing onto paper the white doesn't actually get printed but left unprinted. So trying to print the same just switching to black paper results in nothing.

    There are different methods of printing onto T-Shirts, the best is probably screen printing, but many of the digital t-shirt prints I've seen are basically printed onto a special paper then transferred onto the t-shirt (which actually takes the white background with it whether you like it or not!). That was the process we used to use at a company I used to work for. It was basically printed on a colour copier in reverse then ironed onto the t-shirt using a hot press. If that's the process this company is using then you may have to think again about the design and include the white bg, or actually put a black background on the design (which will probably look different to the t-shirt colour when transferred). Not ideal for what you are trying to do.

    I hope that explains the situation a little bit. A discussion with the printer may help you further if that's possible.
     


  4. 3 minutes ago, Alfred said:

    You can tell from the resizing handle at bottom right that the OP is using a text frame with a coloured background, not a text frame on top of a separate rectangle. 

    Ok, didn't spot that. Yes, it seems to be an issue with rectangles that have been changed to a text shape. I'm now getting the same issue.

    Personally, I'd recommend using a separate background shape, it's a lot more convenient, and makes editing a lot easier. Keep any text shapes transparent.
    Once you've converted a shape to a frame it makes it hard (if at all possible?) to change the background color again, as the text then picks up the fill colour rather than the shape.


  5. I don't understand how this would be possible. If you have anything non-destructive then it has to have it's original source available, so you won't gain any savings in file size? If you resample the source then you are destroying the original. If you try to keep both then surely you can at best only get an increase in file size, even if it is just some additional sample resolution settings that are added.

    If you export to PDF then you get to choose resolution at that point and it resamples the images to that resolution, but obviously that's not non-destructive and not the same as saving as an .afpub file.

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding?
     


  6. 4 hours ago, Chris26 said:

    This was a huge leap because after 4 years they finally broought in adjustment layers and actions  WOW!  That took Years my friends, years. 

    I remember that WOW factor! ...and V4 added History too. Working on the earlier versions of Photoshop were a lot more challenging,  requiring a lot of thought about HOW to do things, rather than just looking for the feature, pressing a button and it happen. If I remember correctly V1 didn't even have layers! I can't even imagine working with that now.

    What I like about Affinity products is the fact they've gone back to the start, looked at the core processes and improved some of that basic functionality.


     


  7. 5 minutes ago, worlok said:

    Anyhoo, I was surprised there was no built in filters like this for Affinity

    Well, to be honest those type of filters don't tend to be great and only give a pseudo paint effect... give Dynamic Auto Painter a spin and you'll see what I mean, I doubt you'll find an equivalent quality from any other software, it's easily the best I've seen for what it does, but then it's not trying to be anything it isn't - it's just for converting photos to look like they've been made with traditional media, and it does actually paint the picture for you (you can sit and watch it doing it which is fascinating). The right tools for the right job and all that ... 

    I actually wouldn't want to see AF Photo getting bulked up with filters like that. You could probably set up macros to achieve some of those sort of things. Early memories of using Photo**op early versions before they had those filters come flooding back where you had to be smart with the channels etc. to achieve effects like drop shadow, and chrome etc.).

    For example, if you wanted a pencil drawing type effect in AF Photo you could use the 'detect edges' followed by a layer > invert, then use levels/curves to get the strength of stroke and remove the lighter greys etc. You could spend some time setting this up as a macro then you'd have a one button pencil tool. Oil painting is gonna be a lot tougher but I'm sure it's probably achievable to some extent. Macros are great for these sort of things.


     


  8. 4 minutes ago, Dan C said:

    We have no issue with our customers mentioning and recommending software to others, I appreciate your hesitance here but provided you aren't trying to sell the software or providing a referral link etc then you're welcome to name any software you deem is relevant to the discussion  :)

     

    (apart from Ad**e, the lesser mentioned the better ;))

    Thanks for confirming! 
     


  9. 2 minutes ago, Alfred said:

    I’m not aware of any such rule! Posts to these forums include very many references to Serif’s competitors’ products.

    It's this bit in the guidelines about prohibited content?
     

    • any advertising or soliciting including, without limitation, advertisements, store announcements, for sale or trade, coupons, sales, consultants, and eBay postings
    • links to any other commercial website or store, although moderators may use their discretion
    • references to any other website or store in any way that is believed to be solely for advertising



      It's a bit ambiguous I know , so I'll take a risk being that I'm not advertising this for my own benefit in any way and I'm generally very pro Affinity! ... the software I was talking about is Dynamic Auto Painter by Mediachance ... it's a little hidden gem of a product that I discovered a few years ago.

  10. If I want to get painterly effects such as oil paints, watercolour, chalks etc. I normally use a dedicated bit of software (which I can't name due to forum rules) for that which does an amazing job, and completely automated (a google search may well bring up this product by a lesser-known graphics company, it doesn't cost the earth but it's more expensive that any of the affinity products).

    You can achieve fairly convincing painting effects in tools like Affinity, but it requires a lot of work on your part, but you do have ultimate control by doing so. Sometimes it's worth all the extra effort. You would need to spend some time learning the way the brushes are set up so you can tailor them to suit what you are doing for the best results. Also, I'd recommend getting a pen tablet to get the extra control needed to make it look more natural.


  11. As John said the Affine filter will allow you to move the sides into the middle, so you can create a seamless loop. This is something I used to do a lot in Photoshop (offset filter) when making seamless textures for 3d models.
     

    As for how you would print a continuous loop onto a T-shirt, I've no idea, but I imagine the input needed would just be a rectangle that meets at the edges, or supplied in two pieces that are printed with some sort of registration alignment. Best get advice from the people making the T-shirt. 

     


  12. Thinking about the OP, have you tried the in-painting tool rather than the healing tool? It might give a decent result, although I realise the two are quite similar i nature. Also, try to obliterate the entire object you want to get rid of in one hit rather than several steps as these tools will try to blend the edges of your painting back into what the surrounding area is, which may explain the dark graduations coming from the line. If there's not a lot of surrounding area then you may have to work at it a bit to get what you want, but I normally find getting as much as possible in one hit the best start, then work on the things that it may have duplicated into the fill as a second step.


  13. 3 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

    yesterday I re-recorded a MIDI track instead of the audio track, undo that recording and then record a silent audio track (twice).

    LOL Can't say I've ever done that one, my usual thing for music is to think I pressed the record button but instead I've pressed the play button. This normally happens when your performance is at it's peak and you realise it's gone forever!


  14. Are you using the fill tool to flood fill your drawn shape? If so, you may be experiencing a common problem when using such a tool (and this applies to all packages I’ve ever used). The problem is in the way shapes are represented in the computer. Rather than being a single colour, lines are made up of lots of colours (or to be more precise, different intensities of the same colour, and the reason for this is to make the line look smooth - known as anti-aliasing - zoom right in to see these variations on the pixels, normally ranging from solid to transparent, but it depends on the context). So when you choose to fill a shape the fill works it’s way out until it finds a pixel of a different colour to that you clicked on. Now, if you imagine your outline being surrounded by more subtle pixels to make it look smooth, what happens is as soon as the fill detects the very first of these subtle colours the fill algorithm thinks it’s at the outline and stops there leaving what looks like a gap between the subtle colours and the main part of the outline. I can’t remember if in Photo there is a tolerance setting on the fill (I’m sure there must be, probably in the context bar), but you can normally overcome this issue by making the tolerance a higher value. This tells the fill algorithm to accept more difference in colour before registering as the edge, and closes that gap. Might be worth upping the tolerance if that is your issue. It’s not always possible to get a perfect result, as if you up the tolerance too much it fails to detect your outline properly and fills the outside area. It all depends on the consistency of the outline and whether it has any weak spots.


  15. Just now, Friksel said:

    What you describe here is not a guide. A guide is a permanent shape to snap objects to.

    I do know what guides are, but ultimately, you can make a shape (whether that's a straight line or angle line or whatever you like), put it on a background layer, lock that layer, then use that for objects to snap to. It's not a guide, but it's the next best thing, and helps overcome the limitations of the real guides. The only real difference is that you can't hide and show that layer with a shortcut key, you'd have to click on the eye in the layers panel to hide it.  Of course, you'd also need to delete or hide it before outputing too.


  16. AMW, Just out of interest, are these tall screenshots coming from a browser showing a web page? Because Firefox has a screen capture feature built in that grabs the whole page in one go. Saves a lot of time messing about stitching grabs back together.

    I still have to do this for sites I work on where the only browser available on a specific machine is IE11, and I find Designer very good for piecing these grabs back together (not automated, but quick nonetheless). You can just use the artboard tool to click on the first grab to create a 'to size' art board, then pull the art board taller on the bottom handle, then place the next grab in, pulling the art board down each time, and everything snaps nicely together without much fuss. It's like a dream compared to doing it in Photoshop.


  17. On 4/7/2018 at 7:23 AM, Friksel said:

    I guess when it would become possible to convert objects to guides, like in Illustrator, that suits a lot of different needs at once. With that you can create angled guides, round guides, etc.

    Not sure if this has changed since your post, but you can currently use objects as guides (hovering over gives a nice yellow line along the object you are about to snap to). That includes locked layers, so it would be fairly trivial to add your own angled guides. Also, there's an amazing tool hidden away for some reason called the 'Point Transform Tool'. I'd definitely recommend customising your tool palette and adding that, as it's great for aligning objects to other shapes.

×

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.