Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've had a change of heart on my concerns about there being no fit-frame-to-frame or content-to-frame. For my particular purposes, most of the time I find myself dispensing with frames entirely. The vector crop tool works fine for when I need cropping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2018 at 4:31 PM, PMan said:

Hi, If you have placed an image in a picture frame and you want to return it to its native properties

i) select the image/frame, then going to Preferences (top left) and selecting None (picture will not be scaled). Image will revert to its original size

ii) As someone else stated, if you double click on an image in a picture frame you can resize it separately and still revert to its original size using i) above or use any of the other Scales in Preferences

Pman 

129131666_AffinityPictureframeproperties.JPG.0ba95da2ec60123cf1708126a343119f.JPG

I think you are misunderstanding the need. I do not want the image to come to the original size. I would need the frame to conform. The only way would be to place the image directly. But sometimes you know the height of the image or width you want. Then you have a coupe of options for the image you want to place, they are of different aspect ratios. Using scale to minimum fit won't work properly in that occasion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a tool which crop the image like you want!
Take the "Vector Crop Tool" to crop the image without any change of the size.
Its realy not the best name for the tool, because in my sight there is nothin with vector in this case.
Take a long time to find out that.
Best Regards
Fredy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Fredy said:

There is a tool which crop the image like you want!
Take the "Vector Crop Tool" to crop the image without any change of the size.
Its realy not the best name for the tool, because in my sight there is nothin with vector in this case.
Take a long time to find out that.
Best Regards
Fredy

I do not want to crop the said image. I want to keep one of the dimensions of the picture frame as set prior placing the image and then conform the frame to the image. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be able to have both absolute (units) and relative (%) values when manipulating any object/frame/content. I currently cannot get a mis-sized object to return to correct proportions because I don't know the actual units needed to maintain its general size but get back to having no distortion.  I should be able to type %H %W to the same value and know I now have its aspect ratio correct.

Fitting:

  • Fit Contents in Frame Proportionately (means entire contents are visible with existing frame size - no cropping occurs)
  • Fill Frame with Contents Proportionately (means the existing frame size will be filled and the contents effectively cropped)
  • Fit Frame to Contents (means the frame changes size to match dimensions of contents - no cropping occurs)

Once fitted, it should be a starting point. When I adjust the frame-content set the crop established by the fitting should not change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2018 at 6:37 PM, Esaeo said:

Should be able to have both absolute (units) and relative (%) values when manipulating any object/frame/content. I currently cannot get a mis-sized object to return to correct proportions because I don't know the actual units needed to maintain its general size but get back to having no distortion.  I should be able to type %H %W to the same value and know I now have its aspect ratio correct.

Fitting:

  • Fit Contents in Frame Proportionately (means entire contents are visible with existing frame size - no cropping occurs)
  • Fill Frame with Contents Proportionately (means the existing frame size will be filled and the contents effectively cropped)
  • Fit Frame to Contents (means the frame changes size to match dimensions of contents - no cropping occurs)

Once fitted, it should be a starting point. When I adjust the frame-content set the crop established by the fitting should not change.

Agree with the 2 basic functions being discussed here:

- Ability to size any object by units and percentage, especially images. Once placed, if an image gets scaled, I can't find a way to get it back to it's original size.

- Easily adjust images placed in frames. Been using ID for years and I believe it has the best concept: all placed images are contained in frames. You can manipulate both or either in any number of ways. Scaling both together, scale just the pic, snapping pic to fit frame and frame to fit image, rotating image within frame. All are necessary. As mentioned by others previously, building a page layout with empty frames as placeholders is a common practice in page layout. Being able to quickly drop in and snap fit images within those existing frames is part of life. (I know those "fit content" and "fit frame" key commands in ID are a bit of finger twister, but once learned, it's second nature.) And it's obviously a feature in that odd "Properties" box, but it needs to be able to happen on the fly, not set on a frame before an image is placed in it.

tldr; ID really does have the most effective method. All images are in frames and you can manipulate either as needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2018 at 11:51 PM, Cristiano Falaschi said:

I like the smart picture frame but I would also like a stupid mode like inDesign :)

Yes, me too. I'm very used to the InDesign version because it is so effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2018 at 1:40 AM, Thisismandatory said:

Never would it occur to me that upon selecting the frame I have than select the tool itself to get that 'functionality' - slider. Very counter intuitive.

I agree. I would never found out about this myself if I didn't read about it in the forum here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2018 at 12:02 AM, Fredy said:

There is a tool which crop the image like you want!
Take the "Vector Crop Tool" to crop the image without any change of the size.
Its realy not the best name for the tool, because in my sight there is nothin with vector in this case.
Take a long time to find out that.
Best Regards
Fredy

The name "vector crop" perfectly fits because the tool does exactly what the name implies -- it crops the image with a vector object which is in this case a rectangle. Vector Crop is essentially image clipping mask that clips it with a vector rectangle. You can see that in the layers tab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vector Crop essentially destroys any possibility of further movement of the image within that frame from what I can see. I placed an image into a frame, sized it within the frame, then used the vector crop tool to crop it. Once that was done, the only option was to switch the 'mask' on or off.

I personally think InDesign handles images within picture frames so much better than Publisher. You can control an image within the frame far more easily and you can actually see what size the image is within the frame. The way images are actually handled in Publisher is quite off putting for me.


He never fails to achieve new heights in being stupid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you even need a frame?  Are you making it visible?

If not, you can probably insert the picture directly into the document and skip the frame completely...

Even if you want a border around the picture you can do that without putting it in a frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bbwd said:

I personally think InDesign handles images within picture frames so much better than Publisher.

Adobe has just released the latest update to inDesign and they copied the way Affinity handles pictures.

Share this post


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

Adobe has just released the latest update to inDesign and they copied the way Affinity handles pictures.

No, definitely not. :) The Photoshop „Frames“ have been present in alpha and beta versions long before Publisher was released. And the final version doesn’t show any of the issues and glitches, which Publisher’s image frames are showing. I say that without any malicious joy. Publisher definitely is on the right way! :)

 

Share this post


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

The Photoshop „Frames“ have been present in alpha and beta versions long before Publisher was released.

I thought I was referring to the inDesign frames. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, fde101 said:

Do you even need a frame?  Are you making it visible?

If not, you can probably insert the picture directly into the document and skip the frame completely...

Even if you want a border around the picture you can do that without putting it in a frame.

This has nothing to do with a visible frame.  It's all about controlling the area an image covers despite the actual aspect ratio or size of the image itself.  Basically, the frame is a clipping mask, as in Illustrator or graphic frame as in InDesign; heck, even Quark XPress had this.  We need the frame because very rarely is an image ever the size or aspect ratio necessary for the document where it is placed, and we definitely do NOT want to have to crop, size, and save a separate image file for every variation of an image's use in the document.  Graphic frames are necessary, and the ability to easily manipulate the image in the frame and the frame itself separately or together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try drawing a rectangle using the normal rectangle tool then dragging it in the layers palette just to the right of an image that is not in a frame; this turns the rectangle into a mask for the image.  If you select the rectangle in the layers palette you can then move and resize it without moving the image.  Selecting the image itself (in the layers palette or by clicking on it in the document) will move both unless you check the "Lock Children" box in the context toolbar, in which case you can move the image without moving the mask (the checkbox only shows up if you select a layer/object that has a child, such as the mask).

Does that give you what you need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fde101 said:

Try drawing a rectangle using the normal rectangle tool then dragging it in the layers palette just to the right of an image that is not in a frame; this turns the rectangle into a mask for the image.  If you select the rectangle in the layers palette you can then move and resize it without moving the image.  Selecting the image itself (in the layers palette or by clicking on it in the document) will move both unless you check the "Lock Children" box in the context toolbar, in which case you can move the image without moving the mask (the checkbox only shows up if you select a layer/object that has a child, such as the mask).

Does that give you what you need?

I’ll give that a try next time I’m at my iMac. 


He never fails to achieve new heights in being stupid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, fde101 said:

Try drawing a rectangle using the normal rectangle tool then dragging it in the layers palette just to the right of an image that is not in a frame; this turns the rectangle into a mask for the image.  If you select the rectangle in the layers palette you can then move and resize it without moving the image.  Selecting the image itself (in the layers palette or by clicking on it in the document) will move both unless you check the "Lock Children" box in the context toolbar, in which case you can move the image without moving the mask (the checkbox only shows up if you select a layer/object that has a child, such as the mask).

Does that give you what you need?

Hi,

I tried the above though I used a cog not a rectangle ) and I found that the picture cut off part of the cog and not vice versa so the picture became the mask.

1612349503_masking1.PNG.ba9ea7ac3df83d6cef05d91b04969eda.PNG

I then tried reversing the process  ie in the Layers  palette drag the picture onto the shape layer 

Hey presto! That works the way a mask should. Now selecting the rectangle give the option 'Lock Children' so that you can move/resize the rectangle. Resizing the rectangle masks the picture beneath, and finally when you untick the 'Lock Children' you can position the rectangle + picture anywhere in your publication and resize the rectangle (and with it the picture). You will now find that the rectangle is acting just like a picture frame as well , so that if you resize it horizontally (or vertically) only, the image will be stretched to fit it.  In these images I have made the rectangle's frame wider so that it can be clearly seen.

250047164_mask2.PNG.80b78fb74ab2992da290d38e33e62d70.PNG     

Rectangle and original picture      (above)                                                 

  1081520057_mask3.PNG.2759f24a2e64b5b37fcf94e8ab772c0c.PNG        1903244352_mask4.PNG.c098f239892c56467c06f2dd5f7dc2d6.PNG       

            Rectangle being use to mask parts of image 

              554227644_mask5.PNG.35117c955a177de8964b11b9019219aa.PNG

Lock children unticked and rectangle [+ image] stretched     

However, although the rectangle is acting like a picture frame it does not have the image size control that appears at the bottom of a picture frame when you select a picture frame and which can be quickly used to resize the image within the picture frame  ie  this tool  244452415_maskpictureframecontrol.PNG.095f37e26ec0025ba5f37b92cfeb2b02.PNG.   To resize an image within your rectangle, using the method outlined above, you have to select your rectangle, tick the Lock Children box, then select the image using the Layers Palette and then resize your image and finally remember to untick the Lock Children box.

However it's biggest advantage is that you can use other shapes to use as masks eg 814744065_mask6.PNG.aa7c0aedaf18ac6eccb71d042a8a132d.PNG

 

So thanks fde101 for helping to provide a solution which provides an alternative way to work!

Pman

Edited by PMan
found that the text labels did not fit under images correctly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, fde101 said:

Try drawing a rectangle using the normal rectangle tool then dragging it in the layers palette just to the right of an image that is not in a frame; this turns the rectangle into a mask for the image.  If you select the rectangle in the layers palette you can then move and resize it without moving the image.  Selecting the image itself (in the layers palette or by clicking on it in the document) will move both unless you check the "Lock Children" box in the context toolbar, in which case you can move the image without moving the mask (the checkbox only shows up if you select a layer/object that has a child, such as the mask).

Does that give you what you need?

After trying this, it does work for me but I do have to make sure the rectangle (or other shape) has a fill colour. If it is set to 'none' then it doesn't work. I will continue to use this method and see if it can improve my workflow. Thanks.


He never fails to achieve new heights in being stupid...

Share this post


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

found that the picture cut off part of the cog and not vice versa

It sounds like you made the cog a child of the picture instead of its mask - that looks like this when you are dragging the cog in the palette - note that the purple line is underneath the layer but indented to show that you are dragging it in as a child:

image.png.7e5be17f5fc220ea8c0ccef5c827bdec.png

 

To make it a mask the target you are dragging to is a bit smaller, and the purple line will be vertical and to the right of the thumbnail:

image.png.34faa7b6135307a2669f706ed0e2ca86.png
 

 

When collapsed with a mask applied the entry in the layers palette should show two thumbnails:

image.png.f78be778a5ba766b6d57081d397250f7.png

 

Giving results like this:

image.png.a3408a00d02899c370c9f5b74c50841e.png

 

It can make a difference when there are other child / adjustment layers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all:
You can use the handles of the normal picture frame to freely select the picture section. Go to "Properties", set the option "None" and click on the active anchor point to deactivate it. Now you can freely limit the image. The image itself can be adjusted as usual by double-clicking on it.


My Specs:
- Processor: AMD Phenom™ II X4 955 Processor 3.20 GHz- RAM: 8 GB
- Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
- Monitor: SyncMaster F2380 (resolution 1920x1080)
- Operating system: Windows 10 Pro (1803) / 64 bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi fde101,

On 10/27/2018 at 11:21 AM, fde101 said:

It sounds like you made the cog a child of the picture instead of its mask - that looks like this when you are dragging the cog in the palette - note that the purple line is underneath the layer but indented to show that you are dragging it in as a child:

image.png.7e5be17f5fc220ea8c0ccef5c827bdec.png

 

To make it a mask the target you are dragging to is a bit smaller, and the purple line will be vertical and to the right of the thumbnail:

image.png.34faa7b6135307a2669f706ed0e2ca86.png
 

 

When collapsed with a mask applied the entry in the layers palette should show two thumbnails:

image.png.f78be778a5ba766b6d57081d397250f7.png

 

Giving results like this:

image.png.a3408a00d02899c370c9f5b74c50841e.png

 

It can make a difference when there are other child / adjustment layers.

I liked the last image in your reply.  Working from an earlier reply I can get similar results if I drag the image to the RIGHT of  text on the Layers Palette (and it works for both Artistic text and Text Frame text) but at no time do I get any of the purple lines that you mentioned, neither in Dark or Light UI.

1cow.PNG.fa922f5fe1bf679063f2c4a3c38cadc9.PNG     

1 example of text mask

 

1538230163_maskcowlayer1.PNG.1688981789d087ed1d8d0894d5c1e4db.PNG 

2  Layers compressed

 

 3   1822354871_maskcowlayer2.PNG.7fb343ac2c8cefddde1df0545d202467.PNG

3  Layers expanded

 

However purple lines or not, it still opens up a lot of possibilities for use

Pman     (Windows 10, Affinity Designer 1.6.5.123,  Affinity Photo 1.6.5.123, Affinity Publisher 1.7.0.145 (Beta)

Edited by PMan
To show operating system used

Share this post


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

Hi fde101,

I liked the last image in your reply.  Working from an earlier reply I can get similar results if I drag the image to the RIGHT of  text on the Layers Palette (and it works for both Artistic text and Text Frame text) but at no time do I get any of the purple lines that you mentioned, neither in Dark or Light UI.

1538230163_maskcowlayer1.PNG.1688981789d087ed1d8d0894d5c1e4db.PNG 

2  Layers compressed

 3   1822354871_maskcowlayer2.PNG.7fb343ac2c8cefddde1df0545d202467.PNG

3  Layers expanded

However purple lines or not, it still opens up a lot of possibilities for use

Pman

The coloured lines only show up while dragging the first layer next to, or under, or onto the second layer.


MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) Mac OS 10.12.6 || Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 10.14.4

Affinity Designer 1.6.1 | Affinity Photo 1.6.7 | Affinity Publisher beta 1.7.0.293 | Affinity Photo beta 1.7.0.120 | Affinity Designer Beta 1.7.0.9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found if you click the corner point and then hold crtl it allows you to scale the fame and the content, but it also seem to rotate, so you have to be careful to not rotate the frame. I've tried adding shift and alt to the mix, but it doesn't lock the rotation in... So I've just changed rotation in the transform panel.

 

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

×