Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I imported a collage I made from an PSD file. This contains many pictures as layers with different sizes and orientations.

Now I want to switchover with that project to Publisher. The imported document looks exactly the same as in Photoshop which is very nice.

The pictures are now layers of Type "Pixel". I want to convert them to layers of type "Picture Frames" or "Image" so that I can replace it's pixel content with the original images for better quality.

The "Layer" -> "Convert to Picture Frame" option is disabled.

How can I achieve that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Make sure snapping is turned on for object bounding boxes.
  2. Drag out a picture frame that is slightly larger than the pixel layer.
  3. Resize the frame to match the layer by snapping to the edges of the pixel layer; if it does not snap at first, while dragging one of the handles, hold the mouse pointer over the pixel layer for a moment to promote it as a snapping candidate.
  4. Delete the pixel layer from the layers palette
  5. Place the desired replacement image in the frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this is the cumbersome way to use snapping to create new layers on top of that. Thanks for your guide.

So the "Pixel" layer type is kind of the final destination for a layer with no return ticket?

This means one has to be very careful not to accidently rasterize image layers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Steps said:

The pictures are now layers of Type "Pixel". I want to convert them to layers of type "Picture Frames" or "Image" so that I can replace it's pixel content with the original images for better quality.

Please forgive me if I do not understand you correctly, but from this statement I am a little bemused.  What is wrong with 'Pixels'?  How can you get better quality from converting from pixels to what?  Vector is the only other type you can get.  All images are either pixel or vector in a software programme.  I feel as though I am missing somethig from your explanation, when you import a PSD file( I also use photshop extensively) quality is not, theoretically, lost. 


Microsoft - Like entering your home and opening the stainless steel kitchen door, with a Popup: 'Do you really want to open this door'? Then looking for the dishwasher and finding it stored in the living room where you have to download a water supply from the app store, then you have to buy microsoft compliant soap, remove the carpet only to be told that it is glued to the floor.. Don't forget to make multiple copies of your front door key and post them to all who demand access to all the doors inside your home including the windows and outside shed.

Apple - Like entering your home and opening the oak framed Kitchen door and finding the dishwasher right in front you ready to be switched on, soap supplied, and water that comes through a water softener.  Ah the front door key is yours and it only needs to open the front door.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he is asking to wrap an existing pixel layer in a picture frame so he can replace the layer with another version of the image but maintain the position of the image within the document.

A "wrap this layer in a picture frame while maintaining its position" menu option might be nice to have for this, but to my knowledge there is no such option at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, fde101 said:

No, he is asking to wrap an existing pixel layer in a picture frame so he can replace the layer with another version of the image but maintain the position of the image within the document.

A "wrap this layer in a picture frame while maintaining its position" menu option might be nice to have for this, but to my knowledge there is no such option at this time.

Thanks for pointing that out.

44 minutes ago, Chris26 said:

What is wrong with 'Pixels'?  How can you get better quality from converting from pixels to what?

I found that the layer in the PSD somehow got rasterized or scaled down. Maybe because I can't use Smart Objects with PSE 12, I don't know. However the quality is far better if I put a Image Frame beside that with the original picture in that, too. Maybe thats due to an DPI cap in PSE. I do not understand enough whats exactly happening there to the quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steps said:

I found that the layer in the PSD somehow got rasterized or scaled down. Maybe because I can't use Smart Objects with PSE 12, I don't know. However the quality is far better if I put a Image Frame beside that with the original picture in that, too. Maybe thats due to an DPI cap in PSE. I do not understand enough whats exactly happening there to the quality.

 

Sorry, I am utterly confused by everything you are saying, for me, there is not enough background information about exactly what you are doing and why and exactly what is going amiss.

14 hours ago, Steps said:

No, he is asking to wrap an existing pixel layer in a picture frame so he can replace the layer with another version of the image but maintain the position of the image within the document.

Obviously I lack knowledge about something extra here in AfPub.  Semantics?  When you say pixel layer I assume you mean an image?  I am not visulaising this the way the OP is, a picture frame is a pixel frame and will receive pixel images to be edited.  Placing an image is the same except that it is not editable.  Replacing an image within a picture frame and maintainig its position in the document ?  I've done that a thousand times - What on earth is the complication here?  Quality loss?  That can have so many variables, as long as it is not AfPub's software doing something we are not aware of under the hood. (such as my recent post about AdobeRGB colour space not being honoured by AfPub.


Microsoft - Like entering your home and opening the stainless steel kitchen door, with a Popup: 'Do you really want to open this door'? Then looking for the dishwasher and finding it stored in the living room where you have to download a water supply from the app store, then you have to buy microsoft compliant soap, remove the carpet only to be told that it is glued to the floor.. Don't forget to make multiple copies of your front door key and post them to all who demand access to all the doors inside your home including the windows and outside shed.

Apple - Like entering your home and opening the oak framed Kitchen door and finding the dishwasher right in front you ready to be switched on, soap supplied, and water that comes through a water softener.  Ah the front door key is yours and it only needs to open the front door.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steps,
If some of the layers you were using in Photoshop were smart objects then they will be rasterised when importing to Affinity apps thus the quality loss if you intent do manage/edit them further. Currently we don't support smart objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steps said:

I found that the layer in the PSD somehow got rasterized or scaled down

I can identify with this one.  I imported PSD's into afpub and it was horrendous when printed.  Smart objects are by nature not raster elements.  They have to be rasterised WITHIN photoshop If AfPUb rasterised them on import then that could be a HUGE issue..  FLATTEN layers.  Do not save in AdobeRGB colour space at this moment in time with AfPub.  Convert file to TIFF in the s'RGB ICC profile.  If you need or want to save as JPEG then use BASELINE OPTIMISED not the STANDARD.  This latter is for web and the former gives slighly better colour even though the file size is smaller.  Finally, there was one last thing, I will get back to you on this........Ah yes, 16 bit, keep files in 16 bit if you edit them, but before import convert to 8 bit for printing fromAfPub, I do not believe that AfPub is supporting 16 bit printing from its software at this moment despite the drop down menu availability.  Most inkjet printers do not support 16 bit (high end epsom and pigment ink printers will), though canon and HP are late starters in this field). If you have one that does then both the OS driver and the software has to support that otherwise it won't happen. 


Microsoft - Like entering your home and opening the stainless steel kitchen door, with a Popup: 'Do you really want to open this door'? Then looking for the dishwasher and finding it stored in the living room where you have to download a water supply from the app store, then you have to buy microsoft compliant soap, remove the carpet only to be told that it is glued to the floor.. Don't forget to make multiple copies of your front door key and post them to all who demand access to all the doors inside your home including the windows and outside shed.

Apple - Like entering your home and opening the oak framed Kitchen door and finding the dishwasher right in front you ready to be switched on, soap supplied, and water that comes through a water softener.  Ah the front door key is yours and it only needs to open the front door.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chris26 said:

When you say pixel layer I assume you mean an image?

If you "rasterize" an image layer or other type of layer you usually wind up with a pixel layer.  If you start painting with a paintbrush tool in Photo or Designer you will generally be painting onto a pixel layer.

Share this post


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

If you "rasterize" an image layer or other type of layer you usually wind up with a pixel layer.  If you start painting with a paintbrush tool in Photo or Designer you will generally be painting onto a pixel layer.

Yep, this is where semantic terminology comes into play.  When people talk about an image I can only think of Photographic.  If it were specifically a vector image it would be communicated as a vector image.  When one imports an image I always see a photo which is Pixel.  If you rasterize an image then that image must have been Vector in the first place surely.  Never in 10 years have I encountered so much confusion in the use of these very essential terms until I started using Affinity Publisher.  So it is no wonder that there is utter dismay when these terms such as image and Image layer are  thrown around.  Why on earth not just call them vector layer and raster layer or am I still missing the goal?   So when you create a layer it is a vector layer automatically?  When you import a photo it stays as a raster image?  Does the picture frame automatically have a neutral composition (ie neither vector nor pixel) and is therefore dependent upon what type of image you import vector stays vector raster stays raster?  I may feel stupid asking this but really, this is where you always know exactly where you stand with both illustrator and IDD.


Microsoft - Like entering your home and opening the stainless steel kitchen door, with a Popup: 'Do you really want to open this door'? Then looking for the dishwasher and finding it stored in the living room where you have to download a water supply from the app store, then you have to buy microsoft compliant soap, remove the carpet only to be told that it is glued to the floor.. Don't forget to make multiple copies of your front door key and post them to all who demand access to all the doors inside your home including the windows and outside shed.

Apple - Like entering your home and opening the oak framed Kitchen door and finding the dishwasher right in front you ready to be switched on, soap supplied, and water that comes through a water softener.  Ah the front door key is yours and it only needs to open the front door.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "layer" in Affinity terminology is basically just an object within the document - not the same as a "layer" in InDesign or other similar products.

The Affinity products distinguish between an "image layer" and a "pixel layer" for some reason, though both are raster.  I think an image layer cannot be edited but a pixel layer can?  You can "rasterize" an image layer (even though it is already raster) to convert it to a pixel layer.  

A "vector layer" is not sufficiently specific - is it a curve (path) as would be drawn with the pen tool, or a shape (and which one), or a text frame, picture frame, ...

Each of those is a different type of layer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences between image and pixel layers were discussed here. An image layer retains the original image data and as such cannot be directly edited at a pixel level - you can apply adjustments/filters to it or transform it globally (scale, rotate etc) but you can't change its pixels - think of it like an embedded document. Pixel layers are the equivalent of what you are used to in other raster apps - layers where you can paint/perform any type of pixel based operations.

Share this post


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

You can "rasterize" an image layer (even though it is already raster) to convert it to a pixel layer

  I automatically assumed a pixel layer is already rasterized, the very difinition of pixel being raster.... (thanks MEB I had not forgotten what you said and I did understand), however, as FDE commented, this statement appears rather contradictory, what is the point in rasterising a raster layer if it already rasterised, sounds a bit mony python to me.


Microsoft - Like entering your home and opening the stainless steel kitchen door, with a Popup: 'Do you really want to open this door'? Then looking for the dishwasher and finding it stored in the living room where you have to download a water supply from the app store, then you have to buy microsoft compliant soap, remove the carpet only to be told that it is glued to the floor.. Don't forget to make multiple copies of your front door key and post them to all who demand access to all the doors inside your home including the windows and outside shed.

Apple - Like entering your home and opening the oak framed Kitchen door and finding the dishwasher right in front you ready to be switched on, soap supplied, and water that comes through a water softener.  Ah the front door key is yours and it only needs to open the front door.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chris26 said:

pixel layer is already rasterized

Correct, and you cannot rasterize a pixel layer...

It is an image layer you can "rasterize" (probably a convenient reuse of an existing menu option) to turn it into a pixel layer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose, Affinity 'creative suite' (ie all 3 programmes) live in the same room.  While Adobe creative suite lives in the same house but in 3 different rooms. 


Microsoft - Like entering your home and opening the stainless steel kitchen door, with a Popup: 'Do you really want to open this door'? Then looking for the dishwasher and finding it stored in the living room where you have to download a water supply from the app store, then you have to buy microsoft compliant soap, remove the carpet only to be told that it is glued to the floor.. Don't forget to make multiple copies of your front door key and post them to all who demand access to all the doors inside your home including the windows and outside shed.

Apple - Like entering your home and opening the oak framed Kitchen door and finding the dishwasher right in front you ready to be switched on, soap supplied, and water that comes through a water softener.  Ah the front door key is yours and it only needs to open the front door.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, fde101 said:

I'm wondering if naming the rasterize command as "Convert Layer to Pixel Layer" would have helped to reduce some of this confusion?

I would imagine that one should call it what it is:  "Convert to Editable" or "Enable Editability"  Using terms like pixel layer is extremely ambiguous and I am sure many many people will get confused by the use of the present terms.  And I also think that Picture frame should be called "Editable Frame" and Image Frame should simply be called "Place Image", to maintain consistency with the Place command.  These terms allow for descriptive recognition of semantics and little confusion.


Microsoft - Like entering your home and opening the stainless steel kitchen door, with a Popup: 'Do you really want to open this door'? Then looking for the dishwasher and finding it stored in the living room where you have to download a water supply from the app store, then you have to buy microsoft compliant soap, remove the carpet only to be told that it is glued to the floor.. Don't forget to make multiple copies of your front door key and post them to all who demand access to all the doors inside your home including the windows and outside shed.

Apple - Like entering your home and opening the oak framed Kitchen door and finding the dishwasher right in front you ready to be switched on, soap supplied, and water that comes through a water softener.  Ah the front door key is yours and it only needs to open the front door.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not what it is.

A curve made with the pen tool is editable, and the option to rasterize the curve (converting it to a pixel layer) does not make it editable - if anything it makes it harder to edit, since it is no longer a curve but rather a picture of a curve.

Naming the option as if it were making something editable which was not editable would only apply to an image layer, while calling it for what it really is (converting to a pixel layer) is accurate for all cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chris26 said:

Using terms like pixel layer is extremely ambiguous and I am sure many many people will get confused by the use of the present terms.

This may be the reason why you were so confused by everything I said. :-D

Yes, in speaking of the layers I actually meant the labeling that stands after each layers name. The types are presented as "(Image)", "(Picture Frame)", "(Pixel)" and so on.

My initial question was all about why the heck a layer of type "Pixel" (this means after "Rasterise...") cannot be converted back to an Image Layer.
This was because I needed some time to realise that this kills the original quality and all AfPub could do is create a new image from the pixels that are left.
But now I believe it's not possible so you cannot kill the image quality by accident: Switching to Pixel, switching back to Image and not realising the Image
was reduced due to this.

And @MEB also answered my question by the matter of fact that PSE import just can only see/import the original as pixels and this way I get an rasterized version.

What I originally wanted was to convert the Pixel Layer back to an Image Layer to keep size & rotation and adding the original image again.

It's cumbersome, but @fde101 suggestion to just create new layers on top using the snapping is the only workaround.

I see that this use case of converting PSE documents to Affinity Publisher documents is somewhat a special need and may not worth any change in the tool.

Consider my problem as solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2018 at 7:06 PM, fde101 said:

That is not what it is.

A curve made with the pen tool is editable, and the option to rasterize the curve (converting it to a pixel layer) does not make it editable - if anything it makes it harder to edit, since it is no longer a curve but rather a picture of a curve.

Naming the option as if it were making something editable which was not editable would only apply to an image layer, while calling it for what it really is (converting to a pixel layer) is accurate for all cases.

I stand corrected - I need to be de-programmed from IDD.  I mean I have always thought in terms of Raster image or Vector design so staright forward so simple, no layers of this that and the other.  And all editing done in PS and Illustrator and IDD was simply a page placement app.  But Affinity Publisher appears to have so many editing tools that the lines are blurred between a page making package and an editing package in affinity.  I  suppose this is good?


Microsoft - Like entering your home and opening the stainless steel kitchen door, with a Popup: 'Do you really want to open this door'? Then looking for the dishwasher and finding it stored in the living room where you have to download a water supply from the app store, then you have to buy microsoft compliant soap, remove the carpet only to be told that it is glued to the floor.. Don't forget to make multiple copies of your front door key and post them to all who demand access to all the doors inside your home including the windows and outside shed.

Apple - Like entering your home and opening the oak framed Kitchen door and finding the dishwasher right in front you ready to be switched on, soap supplied, and water that comes through a water softener.  Ah the front door key is yours and it only needs to open the front door.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Chris26 said:

But Affinity Publisher appears to have so many editing tools that the lines are blurred between a page making package and an editing package in affinity.

Some of this is likely a result of the choice to make all three programs use a common engine and file format.  They needed to provide compatibility with files from the other two apps so you wind up with a lot of cross-over like this.

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

×