DavidMac

Thank you guys for this beta. It just goes on getting better! One request. When the polygonal lasso is implemented can we please have an open curve? The closed lasso can get confusing and drives me up up the wall sometimes!! Just my little two cents worth ......... ;)

HI Kip In all fairness to Affinity the release nots for the the beta made it absolutely clear in advance that there was no backward compatibility and gave an equally clear advice not to use it for production work. That being said here's a possible workaround. 1.5 has an excellent PSD export. Export your 1.5 beta files to PSD and then open these in 1.4.3. I have tried this on a couple of quite complex images and it seems to work fine with everything preserved intact. Inevitably there are probably going to be some incompatibilities with certain features but I haven't discovered them yet. I must however caution that I have only tried this with 8 bit images. Worth a try maybe?

Hmmm ...... Logged in and logged out. Went to updates which still showed my last 1.4.3 update and said No Updates Available. Affinity download still showed the Open button. So then I removed my present version as suggested and visited the store again. This time 1.5 downloaded and installed fine. Interestingly, however, the update page still shows No Updates Available (which is now correct) but still shows 1.4.3 as my last update. I'll check tomorrow see if it's changed. Thank you both for getting me there. Now it's time to play ....... and check out the new toys! :) David Mac

I just got a mail inviting me to download 1.5 from the App Store. When I go to the App Store it doesn't offer me a download. The text is for 1.5 with a what's new section etc., but the button simply says Open. When I click it simply opens my existing 1.4.3. Any suggestions?

Thank you Andy. I was sure this not intended to stay this way ....... But as the inimitable Fats Waller said "One never knows .... do one!".

Yes I did read that exchange. Thanks ....... That was how I found out about the button's existence. :)

Thanks. Found it! This particular panel has some serious readability issues in view. I am presuming that this is because it is till in development and you don't ice the cake until you've baked it. Least that's my hope ..............

I know that macros are still very much a work in progress so I hesitate to criticise too much at this stage but I do have some serious issues and some questions. I'll start with the problems I have ...... Panel Contrast is so appallingly low that unless I am in a darkened room I can barely read it. The words Save, Export, Import are just legible but why not use the same pale grey and white used for the rest of AP's interface? The on off state of the record, stop and play buttons is even worse. It is so subtle that I quite simply don't know whether I am recording or stopped. You use coloured icons throughout your interface. They would be very helpful here and there is an established green play, red record, white/grey stop, colour coding that is almost universal across all kinds of apps. Why so shy? I have read in posts of an undocumented eye icon for pausing which is also hard to see for similar reasons. In my case it seems to be so hard to see that I am quite unable to find it at all! Can someone please tell me where to find it? Now a couple of requests. Macros aren't always straightforward and the more sophisticated your recorder becomes the more complex the macros can get and to debug if they don't work as expected. A step through playback mode would be a huge asset in my view. Also can we please have the ability to assign keyboard shortcuts to macros? The two are entirely complimentary as both are about speed and productivity. This is a great addition to AP but please lets have it clearer and easier to use. Once again I do appreciate that this is early days so forgive me if my criticisms are premature. David Mac

Thanks James. I see you are marked as staff. How come you are allowed a dog in Affinity's cat dominated team. ;)

So Affinity works in these instances with what, in the movie business, we call proxies, whose resolution may be lower than that of the image itself in the case of large or hi-res images? But from a purely subjective practical point of view the solution is to apply filters with the image zoomed at 100% in which case the preview should accurately reflect the final application. Am I getting there? :huh:

Yes that's quite clear. I .... erm .... think. ;) If I understand correctly the preview is at 100% even if the image is zoomed at a different level. Therefore it is best to have the image zoomed at 100% as well so the two accurately reflect one another.

The attached image shows the effect of applying the noise filter to two documents. In both cases the document was a single layer of 50% grey to which I have added noise. The only difference being that document no 1 was 600 x 400px and document no 2 was 6000 x 4000px. The attached image is a screen shot of the lower right corner. Each screenshot represents exactly the same area of the screen with viewed at 100%. In the smaller document the applied noise is (as one would hope and expect) the same as it's preview. However, in the large document the applied noise is completely different to it's preview. It seems to me there are two possible explanations. 1) Noise is generated with a pre-set absolute resolution irrespective of document size and resolution. If this is correct it is going to appear finer as document sizes get larger. Which may be what is happening here. If however this is the case then surely that should be reflected in the preview which it is not. 2) Noise is generated exactly as per preview but is not getting properly applied. Unless there is some other rational explanation here that I am completely missing, it would seem to me that, either way above, AP is not behaving as one would expect.

I can confirm this. I have the same problem here. Exactly the same symptoms.

I think it's a given that you will hear from from me again at some point. Part of the problem is that after years of ingrained habit from your competitor I have to un-learn so much as well. AP is a very different beast with a very different approach and often a different vocabulary as well. I am astonished at how good it is .... especially after such a relatively short time in the market.

I knew there had to be a better way. Don't you just hate when the answer was staring you in the face all the time? I try very hard not to waste time with questions which I ought to able to work out for myself. I always check the tutorials, and AP Help and the forums here first, but it is seems so easy to miss stuff which, when pointed out, makes you wonder how you didn't see it all along. I think there's just so much stuff to try it's a question of not seeing the wood for the trees. Thanks again MEB. :)

Here's a follow on to my previous question. Many of these images come with a separate PNG mask file as well. I am wondering what is the best way to use this. Here's a simple two layer illustration. In AP I can Place the PNG above the image using snapping to get a proper registration (top layer in image). And with this selected, use the Flood Select Tool or Select > Tonal Range > Highlights to create a selection from it. Then select the image layer below and create a mask layer for it from the selection. Finally delete the original top layer. This works fine but seems a little convoluted. Anyone got suggestions for a better way?

That's interesting. These were not created in Photoshop by me. They come from a commercial library ready prepared in this manner. Another new thing learned! Thanks for prompt as ever reply. David Mac

I have a library of JPGs of cut out figures with clipping paths. In PS, after loading the file, I would open the Paths Pallette, select the path and convert to a selection from which I can then delete the surplus or create a mayer mask. I am quite unable to find out how to access these clipping paths in AP? Sorry to be so dumb, but can anyone help please? David Mac

Now that is very clever. Thank you!!!

I'm waiting to get a bit more expert with Affinity before adding more to feature requests. I'd prefer to be sure that I am making (reasonably) intelligent requests before I post. I have a quite a list growing ......... ;)

Thank you. Swift as ever to reply. This is truly one of the best supports anywhere on the web. No 1 I would never have guessed ......... But, of course, it makes perfect sense!! So obvious when you see it. 2 & 3 OK thanks. Yes got it. Pity about 3 ........ I detach layer effects a lot, especially things like embossing and shadows. It's really useful. One for my slowly growing wish list.

The new beta seems really stable. Loving it! I find, frustratingly, that sometimes the hardest things to figure out in Affinity are the simplest ones. Which leaves me asking very elementary questions that I feel I should be able to solve for myself. Embarrassing. So anyway here goes. 1) How do I apply an adjustment (Levels in this case) to a mask layer so as to adjust only the mask layer and not the pixel layer to which is attached? I have tried every level of nesting and grouping I can think of, and have searched everywhere seemingly relevant in Help, but cannot achieve this simple thing. It's very frustrating ....... 2) Can I suppress bounding boxes and view (for example the fine adjustment of a layer FX) without the visual distraction of the bounding box. On very small objects this would be really helpful. 3) And, on the subject of layer FX, can I convert layer FX to layers? This is a great application. One day I'll get there ............. ;)

This looks great. Especially the macro stuff ............ you guys really are something special .......

OK yes. The first technique was bit confusing when I first checked it - it seemed to cycle a bit erratically until I realised it cycles ONLY through layers that lie directly beneath the pen tip. It skips anything else in between. This is very useful. The other does indeed work as you suggest. I made a quick test file with four layers. If you select in the palette you can drag that selection in the image. It's bounding box shows even when the layer is not visible. So that checks out fine. Now I'll have to go back to yesterdays far more complex nested file and try and find out why that wasn't happening and provoked todays post. Thanks again for the really swift reply. The support here really is some of best I have ever encountered.

Thank you. You are always one of the first to respond. It never occurred to me to search in a tool context for this. I've gone blue in the face checking everything I could in the layers palette!! Works a treat!