Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dazzler

  1. There's a another technique, possibly more involved but it gives good results. Doesn't work with every image, but in this case it works well.

    Duplicate the background image so you have a copy of it on layers on the white background.

    With that layer use filters > colors > erase white paper

    This will remove all the white in the image (including the centre piece which you don't want, so we'll fix that next)

    Back on the background layer make a rectangular selection just inside the red outline (and completely clear of the corners), so it includes the text and play button. Now press ctrl + j to put that selection on it's own layer. This fills in the missing white bits in the centre region but doesn't add the white back into the corners.

    Turn off the background layer leaving just the transparent layer and the layer you selected from the background.

    Export as PNG, and you'll get a lovely clean semi transparent edge.


  2. You can also do something similar by using mutliple strokes feature, but it relies on you not having transparency inbetween the lines, so depending on the job may not be suitable. Using the appearance panel you start with a thick black outline (thick enough to touch the outside edges of the two outer lines, then add another stroke which you make the background colour and slightly less thick than the first stroke (to make the outer lines the thickness you want them), then stack another black outline with a thickness less than the previous stroke, and then add another stroke with background colour to form the second set of lines. You can of course continue to add strokes in this way to make more lines, and you can also add dotted lines etc for creative effects.

    Using this technique you can bend the line easily and it all goes with it.
    You may have to choose the capping settings carefully to ensure you don't get lines on the sides where you don't want them.
    You can also change the colours of the lines at a later stage easily enough too.

  3. 37 minutes ago, Palatino said:

    Sorry, correction: first new with check mark, then remove check mark.

    Nope, no matter what I do I'm only getting one master appear! I can create new masters but I don't get them upon a new document anymore. I've tried checking, unchecking, new document, more checking, existing document more checking/unchecking, nothing seems to bring me back the Master B by default apart from me adding it in manually. Oh well, it's of little consequence anyway, I can just add one in if I need it.

  4. Odd, I only get one when I open a new document. But the masters are basically used to put items onto (such as headers/footers with page numbers etc), that are then applied to pages that use that master (pages can have several masters applied to them). What this means is you can change the master later and pages that have that master will be updated to match. You can define multiple master pages and master pages can have master pages within them, so it's a very flexible setup.

  5. That's actually a very good question and one I often ask myself ... what is the correct way to remove those annoying bright areas in the background? You can use curves / levels and all that but ultimately this tends to give you a 'just as disgusting' grey area instead of a white one, which rarely looks good. The inpainting tool may well be the best solution, but it does very much depend on the image. You can use gradients placed subtly over the top where the colours have been picked from areas around the bright area - that may work. Sometimes painting the areas back in with a brush can work but that obviously requires some painting talent. If you do use gradients / painting of new colours into the space then it's normally a good idea to add a subtle amount of noise into the new painted areas, so they match the original picture better.

    Sometimes you can hide them by using additional pictures and bringing background details from those into the scene (either by placing the images and then masking, or by using the mutliple sources with the clone tool).

    Ultimately, and I'm presuming we're talking about photography here, the best method is to take a better picture in the first place without the distracting background. Whilst it's possible to fix things like this, it's sometimes easier/quicker to just go and grab another shot where you pay a bit more attention to the background content and the exposure. Not always viable of course, depending on the nature of the shot, but worth bearing in mind. Doing this also makes you a better photographer as over time you'll develop an instinctual 'eye' for these sort of distracting things.

  6. I have all three products, and that's a fairly broad question to answer, but in general Publisher is just more geared up for producing final products, such as perhaps a book or PDF where you need things like master pages, and page numbering, and general laying out of pages, whereas the other products are more geared to creating the individual assets used in the final publication. Think of Publisher as the master station where all the other assets come together and form the final finished thing. The studio link is very cool, enabling switching between three personas (roughly the three products, but not in their entirety). Things like wrapping text around images, flowing text between multi column designs become very easy in Publisher.


  7. You may get better results by using the selection brush tool to select the car first, then you have all the advantages of the refine tools that can give a very clean edge. You can then place the car onto a new layer (CTRL+J with the selection active). Then you can fill the underlying layer using edit > inpaint. So now you have a car and a background layer without the car (the inpainting should give you something suitable that will allow the blur to look more realistic. So you now just blur the background and the car stays sharp.

  8. 12 minutes ago, Sarah Yuster said:

    I don't know how I did that

    I do! ...and don't worry this happens to me all the time and I've been in the graphics industry for about 25 years! When you add any adjustment layer then it automatically gets selected, which enables you to imediately use a brush tool or gradient tool to amend the way the adjustment layer affects your picture. It's very slightly counter intuitive and is always catching me out, however, the more it does it the more I learn to look at the layers first to make sure I'm on the pixel layer, so it's slowly sinking in.

    Lovely painting by the way!

  9. 50 minutes ago, carl123 said:

    Using the Blur Brush Tool around the border of the oval image may be enough

    Sorry Carl, hate to disagree, but I wouldn't do this - it's inaccurate, and will take you a heck of a lot longer. Wrong tool for the job!

    The blur brush tool is really for specific case uses, such as softening a tiny detail on a photo - it's not really for large scale even softness. Using Gaussian blur gives a much cleaner and very consistent result. Same goes for the burn-in / dodge tools. They are tools that mimick traditional media before there were much better ways of doing things in the digital realm. If you want to burn-in / dodge make an adjustment layer and use the brush on the mask, that way you get control over where the effect is applied, as well as control over the amount of affect even after you've applied it. If you try and do the same using the dodge / burn-in tools you are destroying your original picture and the only way to go back is to hit the history and undo, not a very good way of working.

    I know a lot of people struggle with masking and adjustment layers with masks etc, but it really is worth the effort to learn how it all works, as it'll save you so much time in the long run, and you'll find you'll hardly ever need to use the history to undo stuff. Everything just stays much more adjustable.

  10. 2 minutes ago, R C-R said:

    What are the page/spread/canvas/artboard pixel dimensions in your tests & how does that compare to the pixel dimensions of the placed image files?

    They are just basic tests - new document A4 in every case. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you guys to run your own tests at a more scientific level. The MipMaps sound a likely culprit, but I would've thought they would be generated upon loading rather than stored as part of the file? or is that too inefficient? I suppose in the grand scheme of things with a massive document using a lot of images etc these sort of file size differences are kind of irrelevant.

  11. I did save the embedded files as new differently named files each time in my original tests. And the clicking the embed button was the only action performed in each case.

    In any case, the fact is that using an identical process there is a massive difference between file sizes of the document when the images are placed at different sizes. This is utterly surprising to me (as someone who has written some basic software in the past, so have a mild understanding of the sort of things that might be happening), considering the fact that the images are non-destructive.

  12. 25 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

    Thanks for your testing, and your report back to us.

    I have not had time to test, yet, but I think any completely valid test probably needs to start from scratch each time, and start with the image initially embedded (that is, not using the Resource Manager to embed it after the fact). Otherwise, I think there are too many other factors that could give misleading results. 

    You think the history may be having an affect here Walt?

    Just done from scratch - using same image and brand new document each individual test.

    linked 856kb, embedded 6.89mb with image placed by clicking the top left point of the page (no resize or positioning)
    linked 399kb, embedded 1.84mb with image placed then reduced to 10% of it's dimension, then placed at 0,0 on page.

    It would be really interesting to know what's happening here ... if there are any Affinity staff available for comment? I'm sure there is a logical reason for this.

    *Additional Note: opening a non-embedded file, clicking the embed then saving out gives identical results to doing it from scratch in this case so I don't think anything else is having any effect on my previous tests.

  13. Actually it's pretty much the same in either software. Create an oval shape using the oval shape tool. In Photo you can use the gaussian blur live filter on it to get the softness, in designer you use the fx gaussian blur. Then use the rasterise the mask on that oval layer and it will mask anything on the layers below. Then export as a PNG with transparency in order for that to work on the web.

  14. Interestingly, I've done some tests, and to my surprise the .afpub document size does indeed change it's filesize based on how big or small the image is placed on the page. I'm going to put this down to the thumbnail that gets saved along with the file.

    My tests show that using a single placed (linked) image (identical image in each case):-

    634kb for a bog standard placed image that takes up the middle portion of an a4 page
    391kb for a tiny speck of an image just visible in the thumbnail (maybe 5 pixels width in the thumbnail)
    1.02mb for a full page image
    968kb for the same full page image slide across to show a different part of the image (less details there).

    The last two results I think show that this must be based on the thumbnail and the amount of detail showing in that, however that does seem a lot of extra filesize difference for a thumbnail - if I saved that thumbnail as a jpeg I would expect it to be no more than about 25 - 30 kb, so I can only assume that the thumbnail image is either larger than I can display on my computer file browser, or that it's not being compressed. But if it's not being compressed you'd expect the two thumbnails to be exactly the same file size?

    Now, embedding the image with exactly the same placement as the previous ( I opened the same files clicked the embed in the resource manager, then saved back out) I get in the same order as before
    6.94 mb (I expected extra file size here)
    1.75 mb (This totally doesn't reflect the same additional file size as the first example - why not? This looks more like it's just added the jpeg file size in, which would seem logical but doesn't explain the amount of extra file size in the first example)
    7.07 mb
    7.00 mb

    The image I placed in was 4032x3024 pixels  (1.35mb jpeg file) very boring picture out of our office window!

    If I export this image to a tiff file I get 8.90mb.

    So that may very well blow my thumbnail theory.  Very interesting!

    This may be irrelevant to the original conversation if we're talking about exporting files to pdf etc.

  15. It sounds to me like you are using the tool you always used to use but have it on the wrong Mode - if you have it on source mode then it won't change anything in the image you are looking at. So once you've loaded you image, choose live filters - perpspective, then make sure the mode is set to destination (not source), then move the corner point and the image should distort as you drag it. Hopefully that's it!

  16. 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.

  • 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.