TIFF artifacts

[nickbatz]

Look at the black outlines in the TIFF version (bottom). They're artifacts, not in the picture on the screen in Affinity Photo and not in the exported full quality JPEG version (top). They're also not in a JPEG converted by macOS from the TIFF.

The simplest solution is just to export it as a JPEG and not worry about it not being a TIFF, but I've never seen this before and don't particularly want to have to watch for it in the future!

Any ideas? TIA

 

[NotMyFault]

As always please

• upload the actual file,
• screenshots of export settings used,
• and compare files only at 100% zone level,
• at least identical zoom level.

in your screenshot we see files at different zoom levels, opened by different apps, put in a screenshot, probably jpeg compressed. 
you can’t say anything based on that information.

[NotMyFault]

Maybe one of these older bugs.

there were other reports I can’t find right know about missing content in exported files depending on export file type

 

[NotMyFault]

In you case it seems like missing layer fx (emboss?).

try to merge visible before exporting. This has the big advantage that you get a realistic preview of what the export will look like, and solves all unfixed (forget to export a bit) problems of the export engine in Affinity apps.

[nickbatz]

20 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

In you case it seems like missing layer fx (emboss?)

try to merge visible before exporting. This has the big advantage that you get a realistic preview of what the export will look like, and solves all unfixed (forget to export a bit) problems of the export engine in Affinity apps.

EDIT: 1. Thanks!

Add one number to each of the following list items:

 

1. I sell my artwork in galleries, so of course I'm not going to post the file. Sorry.

2. Yes, I did a merge visible. It had no effect.

3. It turns out that the problem is an extra layer, not one that's missing. I figured out what's confusing it: the first layer in this picture is turned off!

Why it has this effect in the TIFF and not the JPEG, who knows, but Affinity Photo doesn't understand why some weirdo wouldn't want the original Background layer in a TIFF.

And that makes sense - people generally open a photo in it and edit it. No one else uses it the way I do.

[walt.farrell]

On 2/22/2025 at 5:30 PM, nickbatz said:

Why it has this effect in the TIFF and not the JPEG, who knows, but Affinity Photo doesn't understand why some weirdo wouldn't want the original Background layer in a TIFF.

TIFF files don't have layers, so I'm not sure what you mean by that (especially as JPEG files don't have them, either.) Giving us more context (full application window screenshots, including Layers panel, etc.) might help.

[nickbatz]

Bring this back, I  see something else: the same thing is happening in a Merge Visible that happens in an exported TIFF. It looks like it's moving everything over one pixel and then adding it back to the mix. Check out the alpha-ish areas (the screenshot below is zoomed in 500%).

The left side is the correct one.

On 2/24/2025 at 5:09 AM, walt.farrell said:

TIFF files don't have layers, so I'm not sure what you mean by that (especially as JPEG files don't have them, either.)

The layers aren't in the exported TIFFs and JPEGs, but they're all calculated.

 

On 2/24/2025 at 5:09 AM, walt.farrell said:

Giving us more context (full application window screenshots, including Layers panel, etc.) might help.

I understand, but it's not practical.

There are 141 layers - I had to count, just for fun - although a few are rasterized layers to consolidate complicated elements (with the originals still there but turned off) and I have a few layers turned off.

My guess is that one or more layers is confusing the Merge Visible and TIFF but not the JPEG export or the screen. And if I were forced to bet, I'd place some of my chips on the Mesh Warp live filter layers (even though I rasterized the result and turned them off.

[NotMyFault]

I see semi-transparency.

jpeg is always backfilling white. (Matting).

tiff supports alpha channel (other than jpg), this explains the difference.

use channels panel, activate alpha only, to inspect.

[nickbatz]

9 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

 

use channels panel, activate alpha only, to inspect.

Will try when I get back to my office, but does merge visible fill in the alpha channel?

That's what the screen shot above your post is - a merge visible. And what's filled in isn't white.

Anyway, thanks. 

[NotMyFault]

No, merge will not fill transparencies.

you need to either

• add a fill layer on bottom of the stack,
• or use a channels adjustment (choose alpha, set offset to 100%) on top,
• or use channels panel, choose alpha, and fill alpha, on the merged pixel layer.

[nickbatz]

4 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

No, merge will not fill transparencies.

you need to either

• add a fill layer on bottom of the stack,
• or use a channels adjustment (choose alpha, set offset to 100%) on top,
• or use channels panel, choose alpha, and fill alpha, on the merged pixel layer.

No no, I absolutely *don't* want it to fill the transparencies - at least certainly not darken them (printers don't print white, so that doesn't matter) - yet as you can see four posts up, it did.

[NotMyFault]

Sorry, this makes no sense. You complain about differences between export to jpeg and tiif. The differences are caused by semi-transparent areas wich are based on the capability of those formats to handle transparency.

i provided multiple alternatives to deal with the situation.

Choose your poison. If you want to get the same result like jpg in tiff, add a white fill layer. The other options blend implicitly to black. You can specify a matting color at export to your choice. Choose white and get lucky.

[NotMyFault]

Transparent areas are a know recipe for trouble when printing. If you intend to get white backfill, add a white backfill layer or use a white matting color at export. Otherwise it is random if print drivers and other software involved in the printing process assume white or black  as backfill color.

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, nickbatz said:

No no, I absolutely *don't* want it to fill the transparencies - at least certainly not darken them (printers don't print white, so that doesn't matter) - yet as you can see four posts up, it did.

Simply spoken, white and 100% transparency does not have the same colour value in Affinity and the values are also different for 50% black and 50% opacity of 100% black. Thus merging/flattening/matting and exporting to file formats with transparency (tif) versus without transparency (jpg) may lead to subtle differences.

[nickbatz]

2 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

Sorry, this makes no sense

Of course it doesn't! That's what I'm saying - something weird is going on. 

I appreciate your explanation about TIFFs and JPEGs (I wasn't fully aware of that ), but it is not the entire issue... as evidenced by the merge visible acting funny.

And actually I'm not really complaining at this point, because exporting a JPEG works fine. This picture is going to be 44" wide, but I don't think the printed JPEG is going to be blurrier than a TIFF.

  

2 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

Transparent areas are a know recipe for trouble when printing. If you intend to get white backfill, add a white backfill layer or use a white matting color at export. Otherwise it is random if print drivers and other software involved in the printing process assume white or black  as backfill color.

Good advice, thanks, but again: we've established that the merge visible shouldn't look different.

Again, this picture has a *lot* of layers and I paint with pieces of who knows how many pictures, so there are lots of opportunities for it to get confused.

[nickbatz]

1 hour ago, thomaso said:

Thus merging/flattening/matting and exporting to file formats with transparency (tif) versus without transparency (jpg) may lead to subtle differences

Thanks. That's not what's going on here, but thanks for the explanation.

All I meant is that printers don't print white.

[NotMyFault]

7 hours ago, nickbatz said:

Good advice, thanks, but again: we've established that the merge visible shouldn't look different.

If you merge visible in a document with remaining transparencies, this will cause a darkening effect by the laws of layer blending, specifically in the semitransparent areas.

try it out, use a pixel, a huge brush, and 50% color opacity.

then merge visible. It gets darker, and that is the way all apps (supporting transparency) will do.

[NotMyFault]

7 hours ago, nickbatz said:

All I meant is that printers don't print white

But certain printers produce wrong results when the transparency is not matted with white.

It is not about printing white. It is about getting correct colors in areas with semi-transparency. Matting with white will do no harm (as you say it will not print out any pigments), and ensures all other areas get the correct color.

 

[nickbatz]

12 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

If you merge visible in a document with remaining transparencies, this will cause a darkening effect by the laws of layer blending, specifically in the semitransparent areas.

try it out, use a pixel, a huge brush, and 50% color opacity.

then merge visible. It gets darker, and that is the way all apps (supporting transparency) will do.

Still, what you see on the screen should be what the merge visible looks like, no? I don't think I've ever seen it not be before this.

12 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

It is not about printing white. It is about getting correct colors in areas with semi-transparency. Matting with white will do no harm (as you say it will not print out any pigments), and ensures all other areas get the correct color

Of course it's not about printing white.

But the white matte option isn't available when you're exporting a TIFF (unlike JPEG), so I guess I'd have to put in a white layer manually. Unfortunately, where in the stack of layers to place it isn't at all straightforward in this particular picture. Actually, anywhere I put it messes something up, including placing it on the very bottom layer, so nah.

The JPEG works fine, and the default is for a white matte anyway, so that's what I'll do this time.

[NotMyFault]

44 minutes ago, nickbatz said:

Actually, anywhere I put it messes something up, including placing it on the very bottom layer, so nah.

It belongs to the bottom most position in layer stack. Then it acts exactly like exporting to jpeg (with white matte, the default). 
 

it does not mess up anything.

i step out for good, all is said and you are free to believe whatever you want.

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, nickbatz said:

But the white matte option isn't available when you're exporting a TIFF (unlike JPEG)

It is available for TIFF with the same options as PNG. Unlike JPG, you can additionally choose transparency (alpha channel) as the matte 'colour'. And like PNG, the transparency grid must be displayed to export with alpha.

[nickbatz]

1 hour ago, NotMyFault said:

It belongs to the bottom most position in layer stack. Then it acts exactly like exporting to jpeg (with white matte, the default). 
 

it does not mess up anything.

i step out for good, all is said and you are free to believe whatever you want.

Sorry that you're annoyed, although I don't know why.

But this is what happens if I put a white layer at the bottom (left).

 

[nickbatz]

1 hour ago, thomaso said:

It is available for TIFF with the same options as PNG. Unlike JPG, you can additionally choose transparency (alpha channel) as the matte 'colour'. And like PNG, the transparency grid must be displayed to export with alpha.

AHA! That solved the problem with the TIFF. Thanks!

I looked at the red line across the white and thought that meant you couldn't change it. It didn't occur to me to click on it to bring up the color wheel. 

 

[NotMyFault]

13 minutes ago, nickbatz said:

But this is what happens if I put a white layer at the bottom (left).

 

what I said earlier was assuming the lower layers are already rasterized. And normal layer blending applies. 
Could be the result of blend modes, layer fx, adjustment or filter layers which react different than simple pixel layer blending.

without knowing the file content it is impossible to say.

 

[nickbatz]

3 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

what I said earlier was assuming the lower layers are already rasterized. And normal layer blending applies. 
Could be the result of blend modes, layer fx, adjustment or filter layers which react different than simple pixel layer blending.

 

Definitely the result of all of that. I don't use the program the way normal people do.