Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Litvínov, Czech Republic

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, after a few years of using I finally understand this "bug" is not a bug, but a "app design" thing 🙈. And honestly, I find this not to be the most cleverly solved one. Mostly for this reasons: I think wet edges brushes (means water color ones) are minority of brushes generally speaking from my experience most brushes in my app have ability to be used in both states - but they are not meant to be the wet ones, it just “possibility” so minority type of brushes affects behavior of the next selected majority of brushes I do not say it has no sense, but I do not feel this is well designed in UX way. Not sure there is a way back though. Speaking for myself, I would welcome ability to turn this heredity on/off. Generally speaking, brushes are one of the most reason I am not using Affinity for painting (and keep combo of Photoshop and Clip Studio). Though I use the Affinity apps more and more for logos, print, etc., they are my everyday apps now. And the feeling I have is that I have no control about what I use. Similar reason, no highlight because "not brush, but the preset" as discussed in Brush isn't highlighted in Photo thread. Minor change everyone makes in the first seconds of usage (size) leads to loosing visual control about what tool I use. I do not mean to discuss another theme in here, but please, pay some more attention to brushes in sort of simplifying everyday use, visual control (eg names in list), feedback, management, real vector brushes etc.
  2. Hey, same experience here. Though there is an option "Don't export layers hidden by export persona", it mirrors the visible/hidden settings in layers palette. So to export everything, you got to open all the groups, all the layers and manually set them visible.
  3. @JimmyJack Well, that works You loos the layer name, but at least it works. Thanks @R C-R I have used the "connect" work to avoid "merge" since it is the name of the function itself. In this particular case I have a canvas = viewport of the app UX. And I sketch a student room that is approximately twice larger then the canvas (it will be used in multiple screens, always different part of the room). During sketching it is helpful to copy some objects like pictures on the wall, chairs etc. to sketch faster - and then merge them again with the original layer.
  4. Hey, @R C-R, thank you, but would Merge Visible help? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I would have to hide all the other layers just to connect those two (or more) I need Use Merge Visible Then again switch all the others on, which is even less fun since you got to remember which ones were on and it could be plenty And then I still end with a layer that is not only merged, but cropped too As I have been thinking about this, as far I know, there is no way how to connect two layers larger then canvas without them being cropped (without changing the canvas size as Walt suggests).
  5. Hello, @walt.farrell, I am using Affinity Photo. You are right, I do not see the outside canvas. Unfortunately I am not sure I can post the graphic itself, since I have not permission. So just in words, I have a students room with usual equipment and it will be used on three consecutive app screens. On each one it is slightly moved, so it is aprox. twice the width of the screen. And I just continue drawing and moving to the side, so the hidden part is not visible, but I am able to draw things continuously. In a sort of way you are right, wider canvas would sort it (yet this is the only screen that is wide, others are small, so I did not made) in this particular scenario. But I was surprised by the behaviour of merge command itself. @Ron P. Well what to say. I feel it this way - there are things in which different SWs are not the same. Like, lets say - in one SW you apply masking by different shades of white/grey/black. In other SW you apply masking by erasing/painting on the mask, so more like working with transparency of the mask itself. Different approach, one has to adapt, that is right, but thinking is lets say common and makes sence. On the other hand, a year or so ago, I have realized, that "vector brushes" are in real "high-res bitmap brushes" in AffD. Realized in moment I tried to export. Full day work in trash. That is the moment, when I feel user is surprised beyond his common knowledge. Those are things I call not intuitive. As a fan of Affinity and a buyer of the apps, I feel really sorry to be surprised in this way. And I try to explain the work process and why I feel this is not different, but wrong decision or behaviour of the app.
  6. Hi, guys. Thank you for the answer. I understand the workaround you suggest and the explanation how AP works. Thats very kind of you. But is this a good solution? Intuitive? Generally speaking in the way AP works. For example, the document boundaries are important thing for me. It keeps me connected with the final look, size, proportions, with the setup of final page, ux, etc. Yes, it can be solved via masking for example, but - is this the right way? Not to mention things like align to the document, columns etc would become useless or much more complicated, once you are working in a bigger canvas then the final is. Another thing, merging layers is a way how to keep layer simple and even prevent mistakes, when moving around the document (otherwise you got to select multiple layers, group them, inevitably it leads to mistakes since you have to keep in mind what layer you paint in right now etc.). I am not talking about my particular job now, but playing with composition when sketching, moving layers, that is very common part of process to me. So if I decide not to have larger canvas, I am done using this. I find this as a very large obstacle for the flow of the process. I doubt I am the only one. I got to say, I try to move from Photoshop, tried several times, I use Affinity more and more, especially Designer, yet I always hit some invisible wall in the place I would never expect it. Despite a lot of things I love. Maybe the thing is Photo is still more for design rather then painting (the long time "please disable auto select" thread suggests), so not many users complain. But I would really welcome crop only when I use crop. And merge when I use merge. Not together at once. I still cannot understand the logic of such settings. Cheers
  7. Hi, I have discovered a behaviour of the, that seems to me not intuitive. Am I doing something wrong, or does the app wrong in the way I would not expect? I am sketching an image that will be later used in online app with paralax scrolling (room interior). I have document size the same as the app size, but I need wider layer to be able scroll it later. So while I draw I move the layer to the side several times and continue sketching. I duplicate some parts that will be the same (eg. photos on wall, books, whatever), so I make selection of such thing, copy, paste, move it a bit. Then I merge it down to the original sketch layer to keep things simple. But the bellow layer crops at the same time to the width of the document. All my previous - hidden - work lost, yet I have no idea, so I close the file and realize later. I don't feel this to be proper behaviour. I do not expect out of the boundaries parts to be cropped when I merge layers. Are two layers wider then the document boundaries? They should keep wider even after merging - as default.
  8. Oh. You gotta be kidding me. The thing is - who zooms brushes to 3000% to realize those are probably high-res bitmaps? After he uses for a tool called Vector Brush and it even works in normal zoom ratios. I have been working on a client design, everything is done and suddenly I realize those files cannot be exported as vectors, because all the formats contain brutal pixelation. Honestly this is a big disappointment. And not a first one. I have been trying several times to switch to Affinity. But I have to keep taking it as the secondary option only, because I cannot rely on the product yet. I am very sorry.
  9. Well that is exactly what made me confused. Even the 100% (or higher) zoom does not show the accurate state of the file. Exactly as there is to be seen in the attached screenshot above. At one point I get it, it makes the performance smoother (my preferences are set to best). At the other, it makes the user uncertain about the final outcome. And feeling of having things under control is one of the most important UX aspects. And one other thing. Once I rasterize such layer (been experimenting), for example some layer that has been pasted from another texture file and transformed (eg to 700% of previous size), there is no way to get the rid of such pixelation even in export.
  10. Hey there. My original question was about resampling layers. It stated: *** "I may be something missing, but is there a way how to upscale layers while resampling them at the same time? I work with a large files (20 000 pixels) at the moment, create textures. It is handy to me to upscale some resource images I use inside those large files, those which details does not matter that much. And once I do that, I miss the details, though upscale and slightly "blurred". Everything works OK when I upscale the original file. That offers several methods. But to me it is better to use textures within the once document. And upscale them inside it, combine them etc. - for whatever particular use is. But when I scale it up several time as a layer - the resampling is missing. I see larger block of pixels and only the edge is somehow recounted and averaged." *** Yet after the "export" of the layer to the .jpg, the resampling works even the other way, with layers upscale. The only thing is I do not see it while I work. Compare: left image is captured from AFP interface the right one is captured from export So I alter my question: Is there any way how to "preview" the export inside the interface? I get the thing about non destructive transformation + CPU thing saving which probably leads to this kind of preview. But on the other hand it is pretty confusing to me and I feel it would be handy to switch to something like "final" preview. Thank you.
  11. Hey, MEB, thank you for the trick you suggest, that may solve the unwanted auto select. And you are right, locking works for all other layers, my experience was not exact, after a few unintended painting on the background I have lost the trust into the locking, but background is really exception. I have checked. To be honest, I have to try to paint some more to get into the flow and get some experience to test how it works for me. At this moment I feel that ability to paint on locked layer makes more sense once I can do it only when I select the layer manually. Yet I still feel that there is some space for mistakes with no full lock. Because I know I have made those even in Photoshop (I use CS3) where there is no auto select so I need to select layers manually from the layers window and yet time to time (maybe while being lazy naming them) I do select a wrong one, so full lock helps me protects those finished = eliminate space for my mistakes. But your information definitely helps to understand that the space for mistakes in Photo is much smaller then I have thought. Thank you.
  12. The difference is that once your layer list is larger then the Layers palette, then when you auto select, then the layer list auto scrolls to the activated/highlighted layer. But agree, not what you are asking for. Auto select is a UX thing that may help some users, but irritates others. Including me. For example when I paint and have separate layers for background / sketch / foreground / highlights etc., it is very easy to auto select wrong layer, especially background and paint inside it. And all the advantage of digital painting, a chance to have things separated, is lost. Disable auto select (or at least a proper full locking) is a must have feature.
  13. I use Photo for painting. At least for such I feel being one letter assigned to multiple tools is NOT a most helpful solution. I would be happy for Shift+ being a default and only way for circle in between them not not to select some I do not need at the moment accidentally which happens a lot when you return to what you do after some layer adjustment etc. Instead of pressing shortcut just for sure you need to look and control what you got selected at the moment which is not much user friendly. Anyway, I have deleted the "B" shortcut from all tools shortcut settings except for brush, to avoid it. But the shortcut works not well. It still circles, but not in between the tools it used to be under such shortcut, but between the brush and the last selected tool. So a lot of times I start to erase instead of painting, for eraser is the most often used tool aside for brush. And so on. Works with other tools too, laso, dodge, etc. I see the same topic in suggestions from last year, but with no reply, so I assume it is a bug. Win 7.
  14. Hey, Ill try to continue your thread with a question: Is there any way I may pan view while I am trying to select with Freehand selection tool? When the selection is larger and I need to be precise, things need to be zoomed. But the spacebar shortcut works only when I finish selecting. Which results into a need of adding multiple selections instead of one.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.