Jump to content

Recommended Posts

One can set the blend mode on an adjustment layer to for example Darken, and this results in the original layer and the live adjustment of it being blend together with Darken. Same for live filter layers. However I would like to take a series of adjustments and live filters, do all of them in a sequence on a pixel layer and then take the resulting adjusted image and blend with the original using some blend mode like Darken. Or for example take a blur layer, an invert layer and then apply the composition of these two with Vivid light blending to the original.

The only way I can achieve visually what I am looking for is to duplicate the pixel layer, put the adjustments & filters on it and set a blend mode on it. However the layer duplication step makes the result a static filter, which no longer reflects changes in the original pixel layer.

I was expecting that putting just the live filter and the adjustment layer into a layer group and then setting blend mode on the layer group achieves this non-destructively, but layer groups doesn't seem to work like this. Look at the screenshots, my expectation is to see the same image in the two cases.

 

Is there some way to achieve this non-destructively?

 

 

group_blending.jpg

group_blending_2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2017 at 1:45 AM, shojtsy said:

The only way I can achieve visually what I am looking for is to duplicate the pixel layer, put the adjustments & filters on it and set a blend mode on it. However the layer duplication step makes the result a static filter, which no longer reflects changes in the original pixel layer.

I do not understand what you mean by this. What are you duplicating that becomes a 'static filter' rather than a pixel layer with an adjustment layer & a live (?) filter layer attached to it.

 

On 11/12/2017 at 1:45 AM, shojtsy said:

Look at the screenshots, my expectation is to see the same image in the two cases.

Why? In the first screenshot the group containing the adjustment & filter layers are being blended with the single Background pixel layer below it using the Vivid Light blend mode. In the second one they are applied to one copy of the Background pixel layer & that (the combination of the pixel, adjustment, & pixel layers) is being blended with a second copy of the Background pixel layer using the Vivid Light blend mode.

 

The number of pixel layers is & how they are blended are different, thus so are the results.


Affinity Photo 1.6.7 & Affinity Designer 1.6.1; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.6.9.81 & Affinity Designer 1.6..2.24 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, R C-R said:

I do not understand what you mean by this. What are you duplicating that becomes a 'static filter' rather than a pixel layer with an adjustment layer & a live (?) filter layer attached to it.

I am duplicating the background layer. It is static in the sense that the copy of the background is not updated when I am updating the background. I would like to achieve the same visual effect as the background copy solution but still be able to edit the background layer and it's changes reflected in the adjustment layers as well.

 

16 hours ago, R C-R said:

Why? In the first screenshot the group containing the adjustment & filter layers are being blended with the single Background pixel layer below it using the Vivid Light blend mode. In the second one they are applied to one copy of the Background pixel layer & that (the combination of the pixel, adjustment, & pixel layers) is being blended with a second copy of the Background pixel layer using the Vivid Light blend mode.

 

The number of pixel layers is & how they are blended are different, thus so are the results.

 

The way adjustment layers are blended when they are standing alone and have some blend mode is that they apply the adjustment to the original image (1), then take the original image again (2) and blend it together with the result of the adjustment. Which is just the same as making a copy of the pixel layer, apply the adjustment to it, and then blend it with the original pixel layer. I demonstrate this with the two screenshots below. In the first image I duplicated the pixel layer, applied an Invert adjustment, with Normal mode on the adjustment and Hard Light on the pixel layer. The second screenshot shows that this is the same as having an adjustment layer only with Hard Light on the adjustment itself. However this have the benefit of being a live adjustment and correctly responding to further edits of the background layer.

 

I would like to do this but not with one adjustment layer, but composition of multiple.

 

I described what happens when a standalone adjustment layer is applied with a blend mode, which acts as if applied to the copy of the underlying layer. Please help me understand what happens when a group of two adjustment layers are applied with a blend mode.

 

group_blending_3.jpg

group_blending_4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shojtsy said:

However this have the benefit of being a live adjustment and correctly responding to further edits of the background layer.

All adjustment layers are 'live' in the sense that they are non-destructive & can be changed at any time. I do not know what you mean by "responding to further edits of the background layer." Adjustment layers are applied to other layers depending on their position in the stacking order -- if they are above other layers they affect all of the layers below; if in the child position only to their parent layer. The affected layers can be pixel layers, group layers, the "(Layer)" type of container layer, etc.


Affinity Photo 1.6.7 & Affinity Designer 1.6.1; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.6.9.81 & Affinity Designer 1.6..2.24 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant is that I would like to have a live workflow, where I can return to any step, modify and have the effect of the modification dynamically applied on the final image as if I would have done that modification it originally. This excludes using pixel layer duplication or merge visible into new layer, because those "crystalize" the state of my earlier modification, and I can no longer easily return to them and readjust, so I would like to avoid doing any pixel layer duplication or merging to a new pixel layer.

 

With this mindset, you can understand that it is more desirable for example to achieve the effect of a single Invert adjustment with Hard Light blend mode by having a standalone adjustment layer, instead of a duplicate pixel layer with the adjustment applied locally to it, and then the result blended with the original with Hard Light.

 

However when using not one, but two adjustments and asking to blend the result with the original image, I seem to be forced to the destructive workflow and create a copy of the pixel layer. Since it is possible to avoid the pixel layer duplication for a single adjustment, and still have the same effect, I would expect that it should be possible for the combination of two adjustments.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not understand what you mean about duplicating a pixel layer forcing any kind of destructive workflow.


Affinity Photo 1.6.7 & Affinity Designer 1.6.1; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.6.9.81 & Affinity Designer 1.6..2.24 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R C-R said:

I do not understand what you mean about duplicating a pixel layer forcing any kind of destructive workflow.

Let me give a more obvious example first. Assume you have several layers already with adjustments, etc. You would like to apply some adjustment on top of these. If you are forced to merge all visible layers into a new pixel layers in order to be able to apply your adjustment, you remove the ability to return to your earlier adjustments, readjust them and have the change affect the result as if you would have made them originally, as their earlier setting is already frozen into the merged pixel layer.

This is already undesirable and would explain a need for avoiding the pixel layer duplication for the purpose of an adjustment (which is my goal).

 

Now, for the specific example of having only a single pixel layer originally, and duplicating it to reach some visual effect, I still consider it a destructive workflow, as further modifications to your original pixel layer are not automatically transferred the copy of it, and will not be reflected in the end result as if you had made them on the pixel layer before applying the effect. This ability to return to the source material, do some edits and have it reflected in the already adjusted result is a key benefit of having live filters in the first place, so I would not like to lose it.

 

Returning to the original issue: What happens when you have a layer group containing only adjustment layers and no pixel layers, and you apply it with a blend mode other than passthrough? What are the adjustments applied on if there are no pixel layers in the group? I would consider the only logical behavior to be to apply the adjustments on top of the layer stack below (as if passthrough) and then take the result, and blend it together with the image that is produced by the layers below the group. If this is how it would work, then the same result is expected if I merge the below layers into a duplicate, put that into the layer group and apply the adjustments on top of that, blending the result with the layers below the group. However the experiment shows different results (first post in thread)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shojtsy said:

Let me give a more obvious example first. Assume you have several layers already with adjustments, etc. You would like to apply some adjustment on top of these. If you are forced to merge all visible layers into a new pixel layers in order to be able to apply your adjustment, you remove the ability to return to your earlier adjustments, readjust them and have the change affect the result as if you would have made them originally, as their earlier setting is already frozen into the merged pixel layer.

Then don't merge them.

3 minutes ago, shojtsy said:

Returning to the original issue: What happens when you have a layer group containing only adjustment layers and no pixel layers, and you apply it with a blend mode other than passthrough? What are the adjustments applied on if there are no pixel layers in the group?

They are applied to everything below that layer group. There is no 'as if by passthrough' behavior applied to just the next layer down, whatever that is supposed to mean, which is why you get different than expected results.


Affinity Photo 1.6.7 & Affinity Designer 1.6.1; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.6.9.81 & Affinity Designer 1.6..2.24 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, R C-R said:

They are applied to everything below that layer group. There is no 'as if by passthrough' behavior applied to just the next layer down, whatever that is supposed to mean, which is why you get different than expected results.

Passthrough meant the default layer group blending mode called "Passthrough". It applies the filters on everything below the layer group and then only uses the result instead of some blending. However the question is what if the layer group blending mode is not set to "Passthough"?

If they would be applied on everything below the layer group then the results of that would be visually identical to copying a merged layer of everything below into this group, and applying the adjustment on them. But they are not visually identical as shown in the screenshots in my first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the online Affinity Photo help topic Layer blending:

Quote

Any layer can have a blend mode assigned. The default blend mode is 'Normal'—no special compositing is applied. For a layer group, the default is 'Passthrough' (i.e. the group itself has no special blend properties of its own).

There is no "(as if passthrough)" blend mode for a group like you mentioned in your earlier post -- either it is actually set to passthrough & literally contributes no blending of its own or it is set to some other blend mode & applies that blend mode in addition to the blend modes of the layers of the group.

 

I do not know how to make this any clearer than that. At this point all I can suggest is to study the help topics & make no assumptions about how layer stacking or blend modes or anything else works that are not specifically mentioned in those topics.


Affinity Photo 1.6.7 & Affinity Designer 1.6.1; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.6.9.81 & Affinity Designer 1.6..2.24 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time understanding what the OP is trying to do O.o

Is it the idea to do some adjustments on a layer, then group the result with the original layer and use the whole group as another big chunk of adjustments over a copy of the original layer?


Andrew

 

---

Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1

Dual Intel Xeon E5 v2 @ 2.10GHz Ivy Bridge-EP/EX 22nm Technology

RAM 32.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 799MHz

Motherboard ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. Z9PA-D8 Series (Socket-R 2011)

3071MB NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (NVIDIA)

Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB ATA Device (SSD)

2794GB Hitachi HGST HDN724030ALE640 ATA Device (SATA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to achieve the visual effect I get with case C below, but non-destructively. I was attempting to do D, with using blend mode on a layer group containing two adjustments, but it seems to do something completely different (my first post). This is not expected as A and B are visually identical (my second post). Also if Blend mode on a layer group containing adjustment layers only is not doing D then please explain what it does. If it does D, why does it look different than C?

group_blend_request.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing the image from your latest post with the one from your first post, I infer that in the example C you are grouping a duplicate of the pixel layer whereas in the example D you don't have any duplicate but only a pixel and the adjustments. Therefore, it makes sense that the two results are different because you are adding to the math one extra element, in this case, the duplicated layer.


Andrew

 

---

Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1

Dual Intel Xeon E5 v2 @ 2.10GHz Ivy Bridge-EP/EX 22nm Technology

RAM 32.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 799MHz

Motherboard ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. Z9PA-D8 Series (Socket-R 2011)

3071MB NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (NVIDIA)

Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB ATA Device (SSD)

2794GB Hitachi HGST HDN724030ALE640 ATA Device (SATA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shojtsy said:

I would like to achieve the visual effect I get with case C below, but non-destructively.

There is nothing destructive about any of these cases. A destructive step is one that makes a permanent, unalterable change. An example would be to apply a regular (not live) Gaussian blur to a pixel layer. Adjustments & live filters are non-destructive because they are implemented as separate layers, so they can be edited, deleted, or hidden without altering any of the pixels of a layer to which they are applied.

 

I also do not understand what the long lower red arrow is supposed to represent in each of your cases. Layer stacking is not implemented as the sum of parallel processes, if that is what you mean to imply. So for example, in B the lower (Pixel) layer will have no effect if the upper duplicate (Pixel) layer is set to Normal blend mode & 100% opacity because you will never see the lower one -- it is completely covered by the duplicate & the adjustment layer applied to that duplicate, not blended in any way with the lower (Pixel) layer.


Affinity Photo 1.6.7 & Affinity Designer 1.6.1; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.6.9.81 & Affinity Designer 1.6..2.24 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, verysame said:

I infer that in the example C you are grouping a duplicate of the pixel layer whereas in the example D you don't have any duplicate but only a pixel and the adjustments. Therefore, it makes sense that the two results are different because you are adding to the math one extra element, in this case, the duplicated layer.

More precisely in my first post I had a Pixel layer with two adjustments as child layers to have both affect the duplicate layer BEFORE blending with the identical original layer.

12 hours ago, R C-R said:

There is nothing destructive about any of these cases. A destructive step is one that makes a permanent, unalterable change. An example would be to apply a regular (not live) Gaussian blur to a pixel layer. Adjustments & live filters are non-destructive because they are implemented as separate layers, so they can be edited, deleted, or hidden without altering any of the pixels of a layer to which they are applied.

Sorry that I need to repeat myself. Pixel layer duplication or merging visible layers are steps that have no place in a non-destructive workflow. In reality I have a stack of multiple live adjustment layers already below the adjustment I am trying to achieve. If I need to merge into a new pixel layer the result of the existing layers in order to proceed with my desired adjustment on top of it, I loose the ability to later adjust the live adjustments in those below layers and have an effect on the result, therefore that layer merging is a destructive step. It makes a "permanent, unalterable change". I see the same issue with pixel layer duplication, but if that is debated, could we please concentrate on the necessity of merging visible layers being undesirable if there are multiple adjustments already? You said earlier that I should not merge then. But that is also what I want. Not merge, and still get the same effect what I now seem to be able to only get with merging.

 

 

12 hours ago, R C-R said:

I also do not understand what the long lower red arrow is supposed to represent in each of your cases. Layer stacking is not implemented as the sum of parallel processes, if that is what you mean to imply. So for example, in B the lower (Pixel) layer will have no effect if the upper duplicate (Pixel) layer is set to Normal blend mode & 100% opacity because you will never see the lower one -- it is completely covered by the duplicate & the adjustment layer applied to that duplicate, not blended in any way with the lower (Pixel) layer.

Blending of an adjustment surely means to take the original layer once, modify it (upper red arrow), take the original layer again (lower red arrow) and the modified layer and apply some math in which both the original layer and the modified copy of it are used. Normal 100% uses a blending math which ignores the original layer, but my question was about using other blending modes.

 

20 hours ago, R C-R said:

From the online Affinity Photo help topic Layer blending:

There is no "(as if passthrough)" blend mode for a group like you mentioned in your earlier post -- either it is actually set to passthrough & literally contributes no blending of its own or it is set to some other blend mode & applies that blend mode in addition to the blend modes of the layers of the group.

I did read the help before asking questions here. But is is way too short and ambiguous. I still don't see how the blending modes of two adjustment layers and the one blending mode of the layer group they are in are together contributing to the resulting calculation. I had a logical expectation as to what calculation this should be doing, but it is not doing that according to the screenshots in post 1. It would be enlightening to be told what this setup does instead of what it does not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shojtsy said:

Pixel layer duplication or merging visible layers are steps that have no place in a non-destructive workflow.

Duplication of a layer & merging layers are two different things. Only the second is destructive.

 

2 hours ago, shojtsy said:

In reality I have a stack of multiple live adjustment layers already below the adjustment I am trying to achieve. If I need to merge into a new pixel layer the result of the existing layers in order to proceed with my desired adjustment on top of it, I loose the ability to later adjust the live adjustments in those below layers and have an effect on the result, therefore that layer merging is a destructive step.

What exactly do you mean by "merge into a new pixel layer"? In none of your screenshots is there any evidence of a pixel layer merged with any other layer. Stacking layers does not merge them.

 

2 hours ago, shojtsy said:

Blending of an adjustment surely means to take the original layer once, modify it (upper red arrow), take the original layer again (lower red arrow) and the modified layer and apply some math in which both the original layer and the modified copy of it are used.

No, that is not what it means or how it works. In this context adjustments are layers, in the same sense pixel or other types are layers. If an adjustment (or live filter) layer is nested below a pixel layer, it becomes a child layer of that pixel layer, which becomes its parent layer & the child layer affects only its parent layer. Layer blending works in the same way.

 

2 hours ago, shojtsy said:

I had a logical expectation as to what calculation this should be doing, but it is not doing that according to the screenshots in post 1.

Which should tell you your expectation is wrong.

 

2 hours ago, shojtsy said:

It would be enlightening to be told what this setup does instead of what it does not do.

We have told you want it does but you seem to be ignoring that, apparently because you won't accept that your expectations about how layer blending & stacking work are not correct. If you can't accept that, there is nothing more to say.


Affinity Photo 1.6.7 & Affinity Designer 1.6.1; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.6.9.81 & Affinity Designer 1.6..2.24 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shojtsy said:

More precisely in my first post I had a Pixel layer with two adjustments as child layers to have both affect the duplicate layer BEFORE blending with the identical original layer.

 

 

In your first post you have a group with two adjustments and then a pixel with two adjustments, and that's why both R-C-R and I are saying that the reason why you can't get the same result is because your setup is different in the examples you posted.

In other words, you can have the same stack of adjustment layers but if you add something different to one of your setups, the result will obviously change. There's no way around it, for any raster editing software in the world. It's a mathematical result. That's how is supposed to work (luckily for us, so we can create workflows).


Andrew

 

---

Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1

Dual Intel Xeon E5 v2 @ 2.10GHz Ivy Bridge-EP/EX 22nm Technology

RAM 32.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 799MHz

Motherboard ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. Z9PA-D8 Series (Socket-R 2011)

3071MB NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (NVIDIA)

Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB ATA Device (SSD)

2794GB Hitachi HGST HDN724030ALE640 ATA Device (SATA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.11.2017 at 10:38 PM, shojtsy said:

Any idea on this?

 

When you apply a blending mode to a group that contains only adjustments it works exactly as you want. First all adjustments are applied to the background (as if to copy) and then the result is blended with the background. As on your screenshots in the first post.

 

The problem is that you apply live filters. It seems that there is a bug, and the blending mode is applied twice to the live filter layers.

 

You can try this tricky layer stack with an empty layer:

 

blend-mode-group-adjustments.png.597233fd03997ad158600367787a75ca.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yevgeny Makarov said:

 

The problem is that you apply live filters. It seems that there is a bug, and the blending mode is applied twice to the live filter layers.

 

I came to the same conclusion of this being a bug, and my original setup should just work. We have discussed another workaround on this thread of using the adjustment and live filter layers as not child layers of the layer group but clipping masks. This fixes the blending math, but hits another bug of grid pattern in the render output if any live filters are in the clipping mask position.

However your workaround does produce the correct result, thank you very much!

 

I was not yet able to file a bug report because it seems particularly difficult to explain the problem in a way that people understand it (see this thread). But your workaround will also serve as a good way to do that. Just delete the empty and disabled pixel layer. Nothing should change, right? Yet, it does change, revealing the bogus behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yevgeny Makarov said:

The problem is that you apply live filters. It seems that there is a bug, and the blending mode is applied twice to the live filter layers.

I do not understand what you mean by "applied twice" or how to duplicate it. Everything I have tried with live filters or adjustment layers works as expected; that is, in accordance with the rules governing stacking order & parent/child relationships of the various layers.

 

It might help make things clearer if you could post an example affinity file (not a screenshot) showing the stacking order, parent/child relationships, & blending modes that create this.


Affinity Photo 1.6.7 & Affinity Designer 1.6.1; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.6.9.81 & Affinity Designer 1.6..2.24 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I do not understand what you mean by "applied twice" or how to duplicate it. Everything I have tried with live filters or adjustment layers works as expected; that is, in accordance with the rules governing stacking order & parent/child relationships of the various layers.

 

It might help make things clearer if you could post an example affinity file (not a screenshot) showing the stacking order, parent/child relationships, & blending modes that create this.

Please see affinity file attached. Experiment with deleting the empty and anyway disabled pixel layer. How do you explain the major change in the image resulting from deleting an empty and disabled pixel layer?

layer_group_blending_workaround3.afphoto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, shojtsy said:

Experiment with deleting the empty and anyway disabled pixel layer. How do you explain the major change in the image resulting from deleting an empty and disabled pixel layer?

I see no detectable change if I either enable or delete the empty pixel layer.


Affinity Photo 1.6.7 & Affinity Designer 1.6.1; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.6.9.81 & Affinity Designer 1.6..2.24 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive just tried deleting the pixel layer and no change in the image occurs?

  • (Group) - Vivid Light
    • (Pixel) < deleted this layer
    • (Group) - Passthrough
      • (Gaussian Blur)
      • (Invert Adjustment)
  • Background (Pixel)

 


iMac 27" Late 2015 Fully Loaded, iMac 27" Mid 2011 both running High Sierra 10.13.6 - Dell Inspiron 17 5767 i7 Laptop Windows 10 - Affinity Designer/Photo, Publisher Beta 1.7.0.133, Illustrator CC, Inkscape, Blender, Sketchup, Pepakura Designer, MTC, Pixelmator & Pixelmator Pro + more... XP-Pen Deco 03 Pen Tablet, XP-Pen Artist12, 5 pages on LaunchPad - iPad2 iOS 9.35 B|  Instagram & Flickr - Affinity Designer (ADe) Tutorials - Affinity Photo (APh) Tutorials - Public Domain Images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×