I used to demonstrate PS1 in my digital painting class. I would show that without a layer-based system it was still possible to create a composite using calculations feature. The process is incredibly simple… an alpha, a foreground and a background plus some addition and multiplication. Even art students understand it. I’m still blown away by how much functionality they managed to squeeze into an executable small encounter to email to someone.
FYI.., the version I used was registered to Apple. Apparently, the Knoll brothers demoed PS to apple and they promptly shared it amongst themselves and their buddies. Almost all illegitimate copies of it are derived from that pirated copy.
Fun fact… John knolls wife was the founding member of the Photoshop ‘Widows’ club… a home to people who have lost loved ones to software.
That is certainly how oil painters paint. But painting on absorbent stone is likely very different - more akin to fresco, and would probably not support a very layered approach.
I used to teach in a UK university and encountered many American students on exchange. It was almost their standard policy to claim disability when something did not go their way.
> a good understanding of color theory is also necessary.
Agreed. I would also speak out again the uninformed use of pre-configured color combinations. As someone who teaches art/design these are the bane of my life… students use them as a replacement for color theory. A designer should at least know how to parse a color into its hue, saturation and lightness components. Most everything else should follow naturally.
To these fine tips I would add: ‘test on as many devices as you are reasonably able’. Something can look fine on your laptop but lousy on the platform for which you are aiming to disseminate.
This also applies to webdev. I develop a lot with the chrome devtools but once stuff is in mobile it doesn't quite work out due to people using different browsers. The browser bar sometimes being on top or on the bottom hiding controls... I started to just center stuff in mobile ignoring like 20% of space in top and the bottom.
this is something web and mobile devs can skip a lot of times it seems these days. testing on only the best screens or most recent device simulators and they leave their work looking like a mess across screens because its optimized for something specific rather than checking or being responsive
> "[...] I would add: ‘test on as many devices as you are reasonably able’."
Testing on a reasonable amount of different screens (and software-based filters etc.) is excellent advice for too many people forget this. Of course that's also always a money, time or motivation (goal) question...
Online shopping of fashion items can never replace the experience of physical shopping, especially with friends. Geeks are no different... shopping can be a delightful experience if you are up for it. Part of which might be the thrill of discovering things you are not searching for.
I appreciate the analogy but respectfully I don't think it holds up 1:1.
Love or hate window shopping, the nature of shopping for fashion lends itself far more to in-person evaluation. Every item is slightly different, and so is every person wearing them. This is why you can try on clothes in the store!
Crate digging for vinyl is similar. There's a real joy of discovery, and turntables with headphones for auditioning purchases.
I have a hard time picturing the same dynamic with identical shrink-wrapped boxes.
For those of you puzzled as to how three separate apps (Photo, Designer and Publsher) have become one (Studio), as a long-time user it was always clear that under the hood this was always the case. Indeed such interoperability has clearly been built into the Affinity suite from the ground up.
This is 100 miles away from the interoperability of Adobe's Dynamic Link whereby apps such as Premier and After Effects are 'united' in a manner that feels clunky and forced. Almost all Adobe apps were acquisitions, and most of them are now horrendously long in the tooth. Uniting them seamlessly would be impossible.
I adore Affinity photo for its top to bottom support for high dynamic range images. Editing RAW images is a buttery smooth dream, compared to Photoshop, which feels like I am banging my head against the software.
The brushes are editable to a degree that I have not seen in other apps. For this the authors have employed a node-based system which they call 'programable'. Not sure how valid that it, but it is certainly novel.
reply