Layer opacity vs. fill

[Smee Again]

Values in your buttons are Red / Green / Blue / ALPHA  . . . NOT fill.

Not upset or being mean in previous post, it's just that everyone here insists that ALPHA is the same as fill, and it isn't.

If it were, why would Adobe have both an OPACITY slider and FILL slider for each layer? That would be quite silly. No, they are both there because they behave DIFFERENTLY.

As much as someone may want to eat an apple, no matter how many oranges they pick up and peel, not one of them will ever be an apple.

FILL and OPACITY are two different values.

[Smee Again]

5 minutes ago, Pattou said:

@Smee Again I admire your patience to still ask for any feature from Serif... They know very well that APhoto does not have this possibility. No matter how much times you ask...

Actually, the ground work is already there. In the adjustment layer called "Lens Filter" there is a slider called "Optical Density" (which had been called "perceptual fill").

 

[SpaceBound]

I happened upon this thread by accident. I'm glad some people know what affinity actually needs for high end retouching. It is severely limited and that is apparent as ones skills grow. Serif likes to pretend it isn't a problem but it is. Even some of the youtube tutorials have misinformation when it comes to explaining how functions actually work and then they say it is for high end. It is not or it is used the wrong way. All the articles ive read on spotlight have misinformation on proper high end retouching. Have yet to see an article with a photographer on affinity spotlight that actually knows how to truly high end retouch. 

[NotMyFault]

22 minutes ago, SpaceBound said:

All the articles ive read on spotlight have misinformation on proper high end retouching.

Using the term misinformation sounds a bit strong, considering the (political/social) context it it used mainly in these days. This might be unintentional. Could you give concrete examples what is wrong with spotlight ? And maybe start this always as a question like „did i Interpret it correctly that …“.

We are all prone to misinterpretations or erroneous conclusions (this affects me too, of course). Saying there is misinformation before verifying thoroughly could weaken the basic trust. 
Spotlight gives examples how certain experts in the field do things. It is often about personal preference regarding workflows or edit styles. 

 

[Smee Again]

7 hours ago, SpaceBound said:

I happened upon this thread by accident. I'm glad some people know what affinity actually needs for high end retouching. It is severely limited and that is apparent as ones skills grow. Serif likes to pretend it isn't a problem but it is. Even some of the youtube tutorials have misinformation when it comes to explaining how functions actually work and then they say it is for high end. It is not or it is used the wrong way. All the articles ive read on spotlight have misinformation on proper high end retouching. Have yet to see an article with a photographer on affinity spotlight that actually knows how to truly high end retouch. 

True. Part of the misinformation involves allowing a product to go live with parts being purposely 'mislabeled' thus causing the newbies to think that those who actually know what they are talking about to be labeled as 'troublemakers.  I've been treated as such numerous times in this thread as well as others related to this subject.

Well,  by the time this gets fixed (if it's ever fixed) I will have been dead and gone for quite some time. Cancer should finish its job by very early 2022. Just one more example of silly me expecting someone to actually be able to do what they promise.  As soon as things get tougher than expected, change the goals or expectations of the mark.

Promises of defeating cancer were lies, and they knew it. 

Promises of a correctly functioning high end photo editor were similarly nothing more than prevarications.

Not my problem any longer.

Be well folks . . . the alternative sucks.

[SpaceBound]

13 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

Using the term misinformation sounds a bit strong, considering the (political/social) context it it used mainly in these days. This might be unintentional. Could you give concrete examples what is wrong with spotlight ? And maybe start this always as a question like „did i Interpret it correctly that …“.

We are all prone to misinterpretations or erroneous conclusions (this affects me too, of course). Saying there is misinformation before verifying thoroughly could weaken the basic trust. 
Spotlight gives examples how certain experts in the field do things. It is often about personal preference regarding workflows or edit styles. 

 

Go look at the images. A trained eye would know that fs was used for skin smoothing and ushing color around. Not proper high end skin retouching. 

Photographer Marcelo Goulart: 'I always try to make a visual impact' - Affinity Spotlight

one of many articles where you can go look at the work and see the problems. 

 

Serif themselves said they have not found a proper retoucher to work with. A true high end retoucher like natalia taffarel would point out everything that is lacking in affinity and what needs to be added so that it may compete at the highest levels.

 

frequency separation is thrown around in such articles without actual explanation of proper use for high end retouching.

 

[NotMyFault]

6 hours ago, Smee Again said:

Well,  by the time this gets fixed (if it's ever fixed) I will have been dead and gone for quite some time. Cancer should finish its job by very early 2022. Just one more example of silly me expecting someone to actually be able to do what they promise.  As soon as things get tougher than expected, change the goals or expectations of the mark.

Promises of defeating cancer were lies, and they knew it. 

Promises of a correctly functioning high end photo editor were similarly nothing more than prevarications.

Not my problem any longer.

I'm very sorry to hear. All the best for you.

[NotMyFault]

26 minutes ago, SpaceBound said:

Go look at the images. A trained eye would know that fs was used for skin smoothing and ushing color around. Not proper high end skin retouching. 

Photographer Marcelo Goulart: 'I always try to make a visual impact' - Affinity Spotlight

one of many articles where you can go look at the work and see the problems. 

 

Serif themselves said they have not found a proper retoucher to work with. A true high end retoucher like natalia taffarel would point out everything that is lacking in affinity and what needs to be added so that it may compete at the highest levels.

 

frequency separation is thrown around in such articles without actual explanation of proper use for high end retouching.

 

I may be blind but i cant see anything of what you suggested.

There are many tutorial videos (official and from the well known creatives) explaining high end retouching.

 

You can find many more.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=affinity+photo+portrait+editing

 

 

 

[SpaceBound]

14 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

I may be blind but i cant see anything of what you suggested.

There are many tutorial videos (official and from the well known creatives) explaining high end retouching.

 

You can find many more.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=affinity+photo+portrait+editing

 

 

 

Wrong. You clearly show the videos that prove what not to do for high end retouching. The only one that is close to perfectly accurate was perfect portraits. He did seem to know what he was talking about. He didn’t go that much into it though.Did you peruse the comments in some of the videos? The first one you linked has a comment where it is mostly explained.

 

the cloud strife pen name comment explains a lot.

 

you said I may be blind but you are not. It takes training the eye over and over to see what I mean. I’m not even at the master level as of yet but I’ve trained my eye enough to start seeing the differences.So like I said to the trained eye you will see what is high end and retouching and what isn’t.