Jump to content

Extended

Members
  • Content count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Extended


  1. 4 hours ago, SrPx said:

    Oh, also, in brush settings, seeing what you are after... set smoothing at the very maximum, there in the top bar. Make also sure wet edges is not selected. Try working with an Adobe RGB profile instead a sRGB, and of course, not in CMYK. Also, for smooth stuff, gradients, and all... maybe change the mode to 16 bits, tends to help with subtle gradients, and shades of a brush, etc. Is way more memory heavy, but you could try.

    Las thing that can make you see weird shading / bad gradients,  is a bad monitor....

    I have repeatedly confirmed that it is guaranteed to set the maximum smoothing everywhere, but this is useless because it is not a smooth setup problem. The problem looks like a wet edge, unfortunately it is not. Greater than the sRGB color gamut does not appear this problem, Obviously I don't use CMYK, so this is not the answer. I have used 16 bit before, but the same problem exists, which is not about bit depth.
    If you can't see the soft brush edge problem, you might be a bad monitor.
    I have wasted my time explaining all of this...
    I know that the edge of the soft brush is an AP own problem.


  2. 58 minutes ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

    We are just fellow artists trying to share what we know to help. Don't really understand why you decided to take such a passive aggressive tone when we are all in the same boat trying to figure things out.

    I don't have time to report this, I can only wait for them to fix it. The problem is a The logical mistake in design is not a bug.
    I really want to know how you solved the soft brush edge problem, I tried to solve it but it didn't work. Also I don't think you can really solve it.
    I am very sorry to disturb your thread. The problem of 111% scaling has no effect on me. So I will not open a topic for it. I care about the problem of soft brush edges. If you can really solve it, I am willing to open a topic for it.

    I sincerely apologize for my attitude. I promise a friendly attitude:D I did ignore the etiquette before this. I am very sorry.:)


  3. 43 minutes ago, SrPx said:

     

    And you were obviously asking for advice, here. But seems you don't shine for your manners, or patience.

    How did you know that I don't know its advantages? In fact, I know everything. I only say the shortcomings, because the advantages need not be improved.
    If you want to help me, then I am very happy. Accept your help. But the premise is that your help is good, not that it seems to be useless, even irrelevant to the problem.

    I know that I don't seem to have the grace and patience. I look rude. Because I just want to solve the actual problem, I don't care much about other aspects. If you understand, I am not as rude as you can see.:D


  4. 1 hour ago, SrPx said:

    Oh, also, in brush settings, seeing what you are after... set smoothing at the very maximum, there in the top bar. Make also sure wet edges is not selected. Try working with an Adobe RGB profile instead a sRGB, and of course, not in CMYK. Also, for smooth stuff, gradients, and all... maybe change the mode to 16 bits, tends to help with subtle gradients, and shades of a brush, etc. Is way more memory heavy, but you could try.

    Las thing that can make you see weird shading / bad gradients,  is a bad monitor....

    In my opinion, it's all like you are teaching for an idiot. I don't need you to teach me these things, I am an advanced user.

    Your signature has betrayed you, and you try to defend the AP. You are not objective, you defend it.


  5. 1 hour ago, SrPx said:

    Actually, most concept artists /digital painters/illustrators I know, use my build up technique...

    I need an app to provide me with capability for painting both ways ; traditional-like, and mostly digital paint in the way most people do now, which indeed is a lot like is done in traditional. (if you look some of the greatest and famous digital painters, concept artists and illustrators, this is a fact.... )

    I don't evade the problem, build-up is used by everyone and his dog, and that works well in AP. It's all about painting, not smearing and blurring...

    Oh, I urge them,...they are surely quite fed up of my petitions (100% painting related) in this field, at this point.... :S 

    We need optimism in everything in life. And as they have a large list of things to do, this (the one in my signature) is just one of them, and definitely not key for a photo based app...Makes sense that does not have the highest priority.

    Yep, the ALT fix is all I need... I guess I'll stop crying , once that's fixed.... ;D

    Zoom.... Yep, the thing is it seems looks better in my end, that's why I asked if you had looked at the preferences.

    Usually in most apps, zoom factors like 100%, 50%, etc... look better. Well, dunno in AP, haven't noticed anything wrong in that, but in PS it used to look bad in odd zooms (111%, 137, 67% etc)

    Sometimes is an issue with the card driver colliding with certain app, others with the app config/preferences. 

     

    AP111.thumb.png.9a80e25d6784c0d99442740e41047709.pngPS111.thumb.png.dc297e730091b5a8982f7b51153e6648.png

    In many cases, arguing only consumes time, which is very unworthy.
    I will not continue to explain, I only read.
    The image uses 111% zoom. AP is set to bilinear. For clarity to see the problem. 3x adjacent hard edge adjustment.


  6. 3 hours ago, SrPx said:

    A bunch of us, in digital painting since a while, do use a glazing technique, which at the same time is a build up one. Is extremely common to paint so, and indeed, it is very very very close to how any of us used to paint with oils and acryilics (indeed, despite the crazy tons of digital painting I've done, I consolidated all my technique while being a traditional painter (it was impossible anything like that with the computers, back then).

    The glazing is that you need to be picking the intermediate shadows that are generated as you paint, picking colors between daubs...This can be as fast as every few seconds, or faster. The build up, that actually works well in AP ( you have flow and opacity), I'd be able to work with it and basic brushes (I paint with basic brushes everywhere and get my wanted final look in a painting, but lately I'm loving Daubs (Paolo's) brushes A LOT.... I wouldn't need it, but it definitely allows to go for a very traditional touch, which I remember perfectly , tho is from so many years ago. (a lot of it is pure nostalgic, tho).  The problem is... the color picking with alt is crucial to me, and my techniques... So, I'm still painting with CSP for the time being. Will see what I'll do in the future. AP serves me well for anything else.

    I have always had the notion that build-up refer to be able to paint over a stroke, and over again, in different directions, "modeling" at the same time with the strokes, while picking intermediate tones,  so that it increases in intensity. IMO is all the opposite: Build up allows for a closer to real painting style. In Photoshop is totally possible, is just the right combination of FLOW value, opacity, and good config of your Wacom.

    oh! is pointed out by some one later in the thread...heck, to lazy to re-write... xD  And yeah, ctrl + paint guy is one of the best explaining it...

    Actually, the name of the app, and a bunch of other things, the actual app features, are telling you that this program is very focused in "photo", in photography. And in that category is probably where they are wishing it to be in prime time. I have read it from the developers. Affinity is NOT a digital painting software. It is not. We wish it were BESIDES all what it already does, but indeed, is not. To be totally accurate, PS is neither. yes , we have used it for that, at every company one could think of, but all that time, Corel Painter was miles better than PS in emulating painting. Today, none of these two can be described as such, when you have something like Art Rage, C. Painter or Rebelle. The funny thing is those can't do a ton of things that PS and Photo can do, which are ESSENTIAL for REAL professional illustration, where a project for a client involves a lot more complex workflows than just faking the best brush feel.

    I believe I understand now the issue you find for blending the brushes. But actually, for good results, painterly -like, you need indeed hard brushes (otherwise you produce that PS-like, airbush softened/washed only feel, that shouts PS  and too-digital from a mile away. People don't want that anymore, clients dislike it , too (unless comics coloring)...) , and use a very subtle buildup technique, this way it wont matter those transition problems, you build up anyway, and the problem disappears with the daubs build up... is very complex to explain it with words, and am not doing a great job here, either....

    What is more... I'd say quite the opposite... for the techniques I've used and developed for making illustrations (in many styles) , I need MORE a PS like than a Corel Painter like, as I can actually FAKE all those cool trad painting efffects, better said, I can till a degree, and when not, Paolo's or other brushes are all you need to get PS or AP be your digital painting solution. So, i'd say I can't agree : To me, AP is ready for show, specially 1.7 beta : My only single last issue pending is the alt color picking at fast pace (and the randomly (frequent enough to ruin the experience) glitching forced amplifier disk which I don't even need...). Could be my crappy old computer, but it shows ZERO issue in that in absolutely any other painting or editing application on earth (and man, do I have, use, and test different apps... ) . So, we're onto something, there.... BUT... I'm the never surrendering optimistic... That will get improved, sooner or later.... ;D 

    Meanwhile, am staying painting in CSP... sigh... (the sadness is because I really need at times AP's functionality, even in my current overly painting focused projects....)

    I don't know how y'all are dealing with the fast color picking... the technique of using layers and colorizing ( @frozen )... hmmm...very far from a real painterly technique, I search for the impronta, the expression of the daubs, and "build up" with those, so, your option is great for comic coloring, less for realistic but expressive digital painting....

    Every beta brings amazing surprises, so, it'll get better....

    PD: About zoom quality: I'd check well several settings available in AP's preferences.

    Please allow me to correct myself with a mistake:
    Photoshop behavior is wash.
    Affinity Photo behavior is buildup.
    Krita defaults to wash.
    (I seem to have made a mistake. Please ignore the above)
    "I have always had the notion that build-up refer....

    .....good config of your Wacom." I fully agree with your description, it is correct.(I always think so)

    I know that the original design of AP is photography rather than painting.
    I also know that CP is designed to simulate traditional painting.
    You should face the problem directly, not evade.
    Is your painting technique to fix the program? Yes.
    I like modern painting effects, I have no interest in traditional painting. I don't want AP to be as traditional as CP.
    You need to urge developers to improve as soon as possible, rather than optimistic that this will improve.
    I also use Alt to choose a color. I also hope it gets better.
    Finally, regarding the quality of the zoom, you are wrong.
    Use bilinear, zoom 111%, check quality. (extremely bad)


  7. 2 hours ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

    While I agree that there are issues with the program, I disagree that it isn't possible to create satisfactory workflow to make painting work. I have been experimenting with the tools for creating brushes in 1.7 today, and I was able to create solid soft round brushes that come fairly close to how they work in Photoshop along with the pressure sensitivity that will help mixing the colours.

    Made a fairly quick speed paint using almost primarily one single soft brush I made from scratch (required a bit of work to fix the edge problem you had in your image). Didn't really feel like had any problems mixing my colours, and they were able to flow between each other fairly naturally I think.

    If you want, I can post my brushes for you here in this thread, and see if they are satisfactory to you (some of the brushes only work in 1.7 because of the new Sub Brushes feature, however).

    I am very interested in how you fix the soft brush edge problem.
    If you are willing to share the experience of fixing the problem of soft brush edges, I will be grateful to you.
    However, it must be a real fix, not a "avoidance"
    First of all, you should understand the difference between transparency and flow. There are also mixer brushes, which are different.
    Therefore, the fix does not allow the use of mixer brushes and flow, because the problem is transparency.
    Now please share how you solved the edge of the transparency soft brush, I really want it.
    (I only use homemade brushes)


  8. 2 hours ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

    Don't know if Adobe changed anything regard brushes as of late, but over the last 10+ years I have been using Photoshop, it has always had build-up brush strokes as described by people online. I just tried both Photoshop and Affinity Photo and they behaved practically identically in regards to brush stroke. Don't really see any issue since I have been painting with this type of build-up from the very start. Would sure be nice to have a specific setting for it in AP, though.

    This video here shows the behaviour inside Photoshop:

    Affinity Photo for reference:

    I watched these two videos, which is not related to what I am going to say.
    Next is my experiment:
    Ps soft edge transparency brush VS Ap (brush is set to match Ps)
    Operation: draw continuously (only one stroke)
    Conclusion: The edge of Ap is very bad, whether it is on the periphery or the fusion between the internal brushes.

    View at 100% zoom.

    PS.thumb.png.9e4c1ec119f1adacdcae95025c1f82e0.pngAP.thumb.png.d3fe29f91f8c5b2b1dea782a99d94dd8.png


  9. 2 hours ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

    Not sure what you mean by that.

    Krita.png.d1049d88df388f58fe1b7f6fd08d2e1e.png

    Free digital painting program from Krita.

    Paintins mode: Krita offers a choice between two painting modes: buildup and wash. The first choice builds up color while painting in one stroke, the second choices gives you an even color in one stroke even if you go over the same place again and again.

    Photoshop behavior is wash.
    Affinity Photo behavior is buildup.
    Krita defaults to wash.
    Regarding this difference, the brush on the soft edge has a very big difference. In short, the wash is a higher degree of detail, and the buildup is poor.
    This is almost devastating for high quality painting, which completely destroys the feasibility of Affinity Photo for high quality painting.


  10. 2 hours ago, Scott Williams said:

    If it feels wrong to the end user then it is wrong.

    Hi! I am very sorry about my intrusion, I hope that I have not made you feel rude. In fact, the problem of the Lab channel I proposed (although you may not use Lab, may not matter to you), has similar problems with yours. The place is not a bug, but it is a human "error." I noticed that the program APh seems to have different results from Photoshop in some operations. I don't know what it means...

    If it feels wrong to the end user then it is wrong:)


  11. 8 minutes ago, MEB said:

     

    AP.thumb.jpg.b2369350ae496cc5428aa0f44a215c0c.jpgPS.thumb.jpg.3ab80e860f21489cdf0eb086ed862eaf.jpg

    because according to the current design L=0, then hiding the L brightness channel is equivalent to hiding all the Lab channels at the same time.

    In fact, L=0 almost lost APh channel viewing capability in the LAB color space!

    Same operation, different results.

×