A Photo High Pass Filter now missing Blend Mode option

[Icknieldrobin]

Occasionally I use the High Pass option in the Filter / Sharpen dropdown. Since updating to AP2.3 I seem to have lost the blend mode drop down in the the High Pass filter which makes it unusable without the blend option. Is this just me missing something or a Serif deliberate change which we have to accept? I should point out I'm an absolute amateur hence my very basic question.

I have however found a work around by using the High Pass via the Live Filter drop down. All's well there as the blend mode option drop down is part of the High Pass filter. Maybe I've just got to retrain the 'auto' part of my brain to use the live filter rout in future?

Thoughts welcome

Doug   

[lepr]

Welcome to the Affinity forums

The destructive Filters have never had a blend mode drop down, as far as I'm aware. I think you must have been using Live Filters when you previously saw the drop down.

[Icknieldrobin]

Thanks for your swift response..........I would have bet money [I'm not a gambling man!] that in the past I've always used the " Filter / Sharpen dropdown" with the blend mode . Now I'll be using a non destructive process so that is real progress ......So many thanks. D.

[lepr]

You're welcome!

[nickbatz]

Is there ever any reason not to use the Live Filter version of any process when it's available?

[walt.farrell]

18 hours ago, nickbatz said:

Is there ever any reason not to use the Live Filter version of any process when it's available?

Live Filters are non-destructive, but that comes with a cost. They impact rendering performance and may not give proper visual (on-screen) results except at 100% zoom. 

Edit: Edited to reflect R C-R's clarification of my words.

Edited December 5, 2023 by walt.farrell

[R C-R]

6 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

... and may not give proper results except at 100% zoom. 

Technically, the results should be "proper" but the screen rendering of them may not be.

[nickbatz]

8 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

Live Filters are non-destructive, but that comes with a cost. They impact rendering performance and may not give proper results except at 100% zoom. 

Interesting. I've never noticed that.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, nickbatz said:

Interesting. I've never noticed that.

Which one(s) have you never noticed, rendering performance, inaccurate rendering at other than 100%, or both?

[nickbatz]

Just now, R C-R said:

Which one(s) have you never noticed, rendering performance, inaccurate rendering at other than 100%, or both?

I've never noticed either - which doesn't mean they're not happening, just that I've never noticed them.

It's rare that I view anything at 100%, and if I use an unsharp mask it's likely to be on selected areas of my pictures. That's certainly true if I push pixels around using one of the distortion live filters.

I'm using a Mac Studio M1 Max with 32 graphics cores, and that may have something to do with the performance keeping up. Even after 50 billion layers, I haven't noticed it slowing down. And the way I use Affinity Photo is quite different from how normal humans use it, i.e. you'd think I stress it harder.

[walt.farrell]

6 minutes ago, nickbatz said:

and if I use an unsharp mask it's likely to be on selected areas of my pictures.

If you're not viewing at 100% (or higher?) then (as I understand the processing) you won't have an accurate view of what the Unsharp Mask is doing with the settings you're using for it.

[nickbatz]

3 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

If you're not viewing at 100% (or higher?) then (as I understand the processing) you won't have an accurate view of what the Unsharp Mask is doing with the settings you're using for it.

How far off is it? I mean, with my pictures (which are typically over 3' in any dimension) I'm not going to see what anything really looks like without zooming in on my screen anyway.

But the unsharp mask's view seems credible to me even when zoomed out.

Subtext: for what I do - again, which is quite different from retouching photos - I'm not sure there's an advantage to cutting/pasting fragments and using nondestructive filters on them vs. just using a live filter

And if I'm pushing pixels around, it has to remain nondestructive (in the context of what I do).

[walt.farrell]

35 minutes ago, nickbatz said:

How far off is it?

Sorry, I don't know enough to answer that.