Jens Schmidt

I succeeded in selecting all corners:
Selected all objects using alt+drag (move tool). Changed to corner tool. Selected all their corners using ctrl+A. Clicked 'bake corners' button. Now I have a similar problem with fx, I need to tick the 'scale w. object' box on a bunch of objects... 

When I use this method designer creates a line between the two points instead of merging them 

It seems to be a priority error, 'Align to Nodes..' does not take precedence over ''Snap to Geometry..' hence leaving a snap that you think goes to the node off enough to create redundant lines.
Also, the tool tips should all use 'snap' to avoid confusion.
While I'm at it, I really need a button to accelerate/force the "hover mouse over another object for a second to set it as aligning help", the function is awesome but it doesn't always activate and when it does it takes time

It seems to be a priority error, 'Align to Nodes..' does not take precedence over ''Snap to Geometry..' hence leaving a snap that you think goes to the node off enough to create redundant lines.
Also, the tool tips should all use 'snap' to avoid confusion.
While I'm at it, I really need a button to accelerate/force the "hover mouse over another object for a second to set it as aligning help", the function is awesome but it doesn't always activate and when it does it takes time

When I use this method designer creates a line between the two points instead of merging them 

I still, 5 years later, can't invert a mask???

I still, 5 years later, can't invert a mask???

Select one node and hit CMD A (Select dropdown > Select All). Works on multiple curves within the curves object too.

You're welcome.
Hopefully somone can prove me wrong and we can both find out how to do it better.

I don’t think you can select a single curve in a Curves layer without selecting the nodes of that single curve. (Clicking on a curve section with the Node Tool adds a new node to the curve.) You can use menu “Layer → Geometry → Separate Curves”, edit your single curve, and then use menu “Layer → Geometry → Merge Curves” but that’s not a great workaround.
I would be happy to hear that I was wrong if someone else wants to show us how to do it though.

Hi Jens Schmidt,

It looks like the software could be using the last option that was previously set under 'Objects will:'

Do you currently only have one artboard? If so delete the artboard, go to Document Setup and switch to Objects will Rescale and click OK. Then re-insert the artboard using the Artboard Tool (set to Insert to document size) and then change the DPI - you should find that the objects will rescale to maintain the correct sizes.

I'll get this passed over to development.

Yes, but they usually do not respond in the Feature Requests forums (where this topic exists). In this part of the forum system they usually just read and make note of the functions users are asking for.

Yes.

Oh, and regarding the slightly odd "it is just a number" comment, try looking at it this way.
 
Say you receive an image that needs to be placed in a layout.
 
The image is 3780 x 1890 px and you want to scale it to 400 x 200 mm.
 
This leaves the image at 240 PPI.
 
Now, you can't change any of these numbers. The size is set and so are the pixel dimension of the image (bar interpolation, but let's ignore that for now). Hence the PPI is set as well. All of these values are out of your control at this point.
 
However, the DPI you do have control over and it does affect image quality.
 
You can now choose to print your image at whatever DPI settings your printer (or supplier) allows. It won't change the image, it won't change the size, yet it will change the quality.
 
Do you honestly not think this distinction is important?
 
I've seen SO many people who honestly think they have to make a 540 PPI image to print at 540 DPI resolution and are completely confused why this isn't the case.
Understandably so, I might add, given that the people they talk to and perhaps even the software they use confuse the terms.
 
I'm curious if this makes sense? Maybe I'm explaining myself poorly. It's worth adding this is a second language to me, so there might be a barrier there, I don't know...

What a weird experience this is.
 
Here I am, pointing at something that's clearly, no doubt about it, an error in your software (and I'm not the first to point this out, I might add), yet you guys are trying to alternately downplay it as insignificant or downright defend it as not being an error.
 
So far, your only arguments have been to point at other software and people making the same mistake. That's the only argument I've seen.
 
I'm curious if you've even read the explanations I've given and the links I've provided?
 
Do you have any comments on the many quotes where your team is making it clear they don't understand this?
 
That's really what I don't get. You, yourself, is a software engineer. I don't think anybody expects of you to know this subject (I mean that as in "it's not your field" not in any way that would imply prejudice against software engineers), yet you seem hell bent on defending a decision that was clearly made from an unenlightened point of view. Now that you're enlightened, you seem like it would be a personal defeat to admit the mistake.
 
You might think this subject is unimportant to your user base, yet the people pointing this out are inherently your users.
 
I honestly thought you guys wanted every little detail to be perfect, which I'll admit was completely my own mistake.

"we weren't going to change it right now"
If you have plans to change it, and hence now it to be wrong, why didn't you just lead with that?
 
Just by using the word "technically" in this case, you're painting the thing in shades of grey.
 
They're different. Not somewhat different, a little different or sort of the same. The terms are completely, flat out different.
 
And certainly, as you request, here are some quotes from Serif staff being wrong about this subject.
 
"there is a widespread acceptance of the term DPI as being understood to mean PPI"
Nope. Not true. Certainly in your office there is, but in the world of professional print production? No.
 
"Regardless of what you think those terms meant in the past"
The meaning never changed.
 
"there is a reasonable correlation between DPI and PPI.  It's largely assumed that these can be used interchangeably"
That's a silly assumption. It's also wrong.
 
"We use DPI because we don't know if you're going to print the document or export it as an image. If you print, then DPI = DPI, if you export, then DPI = PPI. Hence why we said the terms are used interchangeably across most software packages."
That makes no sense.
 
"It may take some time to convince Microsoft to change their Explorer File > Properties > Details from displaying Horizontal and Vertical resolution in DPI, it may even be futile."
Well isn't that a shallow argument?
 
"we have deliberately used DPI and it is not an error"
Well sure it's an error, you just don't know it.
 
"It would need to change to say DPI/PPI each time the units changed between screen or physical types"
What? No, that's not at all how it works. It's always PPI. Your software doesn't need a DPI setting, ever.
 
"and what if you are creating a document for print that is not measured in pixels"
I don't even know what point this is supposed to make.
 
So there, I trawled through you guys not understanding the subject, now please, honestly, take the time to read up on this (I provided two useful links in my second post). I assure you, as soon as you do, you'll see why the distinction is important.

@Mike
 
"I think that by injecting large format work (i.e., the viewable distance resolution info) it is not helping your case."
Could you elaborate? Small format printer and big format printers alike use DPI.
 
"how they are using it is perfectly understandable"
I've never questioned that. I knew straight away that what they meant was PPI, hence making this post.
It should honestly be very clear from this and the other forum posts that a lot of people who use (or make) graphics software don't fully understand this subject. Using the right terms in software would greatly help in this regard.
 
"I think there are far larger fishes to fry as regards AD"
Can't comment on that and I wasn't trying to imply that this is the biggest error in the software. Just that it's an error.
I'm completely fine with Serif deciding this is not something they want to fix, that it's an error they don't mind in their software.
I'm also fine with them giving it a low priority, that's not my business and I've no clue how difficult a task it is to replace a single letter however many places in the UI (not very, is my guess).
I'm a bit confused though, by their apparent attempt to claim that this is in fact not an error and not the wrong term.
 
"If Serif (and other software makers) changed the terminology regards PPI versus DPI. they would generate a lot of support questions"
So you're argument is literally that people are so confused by this that using the correct terms would raise support questions? That's a bit silly.
And I honestly don't think Adobe, who use PPI in all their software, are flooded with questions from people who don't get this.
 
Btw, Adobe used to have this exact error in their software 10-15 years ago, but they admitted it was an error and fixed it.

Not really, no.
 
Here's what he said about DPI.
 
"DPI (Dot per inch ) is for print. Think of half-tone patterns, that is how a print "prints"."
Yes, printers use Dots Per Inch to print. Agree so far.
 
"if you are working on CMYK document that needs to printed. Use DPI."
No, you don't use either DPI or PPI. If you're printing images, you inherently use both. It's not a choice. Whether it's CMYK or not has nothing at all to do with it. Nada.
 
"The print shop you use will almost always provide [...] a min and max DPI..."
They might provide that, but they'd be bad at their job in that case.
A qualified printshop will ask you what DPI you wish your prints printed at. At a given DPI and a given viewing distance (vd) a certain PPI will be sufficient for your job. This is common math that makes no sense if you incorrectly use DPI for both values.
 
Seriously, there's no argument here. You're using the wrong term.
 
I feel like I'm missing something here. Is there a bigger reason why you won't change this? It's not like I'm saying the software is terrible, so you don't have to admit defeat. There's an error, that's all. It's a common error, sure, but an error none the less.
 
Patrick linked to several threads where users have pointed out this error and in each thread there's staff members weakly defending the "choice" to use DPI by pointing at other software that does the same and arguing that "they're largely the same".
 
I've explained why they're not largely the same and even linked to articles describing the differences and why it's important to know and understand these differences.
 
It's obviously not important to a software engineer, UI designer or hobby photographer, but it's certainly important for people producing files for print production, which is a segment I, perhaps wrongly, had the impression you were aiming for as well.

@Ben
 
I'm sorry, genuinely not trying to be a nusance, but if you make graphics design software you REALLY need to read up on this.
 
What CSJ is saying is just utter nonsense. There's simply no correlation AT ALL between image resolution, printer resolution and colour space. If you think DPI and PPI have something to do with CMYK and RGB, then you're getting a lot of things mixed up. They completely unrelated. Just like DPI and PPI.
And "PPI is the opposite of DPI", what? And you're "going to have to agree with this"?
 
Start here: http://www.andrewdaceyphotography.com/articles/dpi/
And here: https://99designs.dk/blog/tips/ppi-vs-dpi-whats-the-difference/
 
Like I said there is a widespread misunderstanding, which means that, as you say, even professionals and print shops mix things up.
 
First of all, there's no two ways around this. Either you want to have the correct term in your software (like Adobe has) or you don't, that's completely up to you.
 
Second of all, let me try to explain why I think it's important that you use the correct terms.
 
In our print shop we have inkjet printers capable of outputting print at 360 to 1080 DPI. This is pretty standard.
 
When presented with this fact MANY (especially young) designers are thoroughly confused as they have the notion that DPI is something they control in their software and that they somehow have to "match" our printers DPI setting.
 
A finished printed image will always have both a PPI and DPI resolution. I can print a 100 PPI image @ 1080 DPI and a 300 PPI image @ 540 DPI.
Printing a 300 PPI image @ 540 DPI would make very little sense, something you'll see right away if you understand that (and indeed how) the two are different.
 
Printing a 300 DPI image @ 540 DPI on the other hand... Well that just makes zero sense to anyone. How could a print ever be both 300 DPI and 540 DPI?
 
This gets REALLY confusing if software (and indeed the people who make it) use the wrong terms.
 
Again, I realise I sound like a dick (which I guess is par for the course given your ironic "anyone who really understands this" comment), but I'm 100% certain that if you read up on these subjects, you'll see straight away that you can't just decide to use DPI in stead of PPI.

@peterdanckwerts
Of course, you're right.
 
@Patrick Connor
Thanks for your reply.
 
"...there is a widespread acceptance..."
There is? Certainly not among professionals there isn't.
I'd say there's a widespread misconception and misunderstanding only made worse by software confusing the terms.
You're using the wrong term, there's no way around that.
 
@csj
I'm sorry, but everything you're saying is just completely wrong. Case in point that people don't understand these terms.

Erase is erase/delete. The None mode (if it existed) would be more suitable for your use.

yes

Thanks @firstdefence for the answers.
0 out of 7 - feels that bitmap fills are rather underdeveloped at the moment
Please could a mod ensure that all these get logged as feature requests? Thanks.

This is my first message so hi everybody.
I want to leave Photoshop for Affinity Photo. As for my needs a screen resolution setting is required.
As a painter I use to study and prepare my works through photo manipulation. So I have to check them at the actual size (where actual should mean the print size, but since I am the "printer", it's the drawing/painting size). I also use actual size to take some measurements directly on the screen so I can quickly report them on paper. As such a true, accurate actual size is very important for me.
Affinity Photo actual size is anything but actual, 'cause without a pixel density value (which changes from screen to screen) it can't be calculated. Instead actual size is really accurate in Photoshop. Nothing fancy. It's just that it takes into account both image print resolution (the document own PPI value) and screen pixel density (you set it on preferences as you can see from the attached image) to calculate the right zoom factor and rulers scale..
There are some workarounds you can apply in Affinity photo:
1) You can set the image PPI resolution to that of the screen and view the image at 100%. This way rulers will be ok, but you have to resample the image to make it respect the sought-after size. (Absolutely no way!)
2) You can do some math (or empirical tests) to find the right PPI setting that will show the correct size for actual size without resampling. This way you'll see the image at the right size but rulers will be out of scale.
3) You can do some math (or empirical tests) to find the proper zoom factor leaving the image unaltered. This way both actual size and the rulers will be ok, but basically you're doing manually what Photoshop does automatically and the annoying thing is that this way you cannot use the shortcut for actual size. You have to re-set that zoom value manually every time you need it. With such a simple setting like screen resolution, Affinity Photo could calculate it automatically and give an accurate on-screen representation. 
Sorry for the length. This is not my language and I hope I made myself clear.

From 2018? (((