JDW

I absolutely love your post and wish I could click like on it multiple times. Your sentiments parallel mine exactly. However, I have pretty much given up on the developer. I’ve been in this form for years and have been ignored all that time. They couldn’t care less what we think. That’s why I’m not going to buy version two or any future version, and I’m going to stop recommending it to everyone, at least until the time they get rid of their executive management and bring in people who know how to run a company, who care about customers, and who add important features to help countless people get off the Adobe addiction. Features are paramount, but specifically the features that we paying customers request, not merely the frivolous features that the developer thinks we might like. There’s a fundamental difference. But for those of you still willing to fight the developer in hopes of a better day, I will back you every time I see your great posts here. Bravo!

I never considered myself a thorn. I bought the apps, then started using them, then starting reporting the omissions. Status quo defenders in this forum came out in droves to tell me why things are fine as they are now. I didn't back down. I wrote post after post after post to defend my reasoning. My persistence makes me a thorn in the eyes of The Perpetually Satisfied, and probably in the eyes of Serif too, as evidenced by the fact THEY NEVER REPLY in this forum that I can see. I'm active in a lot of forums, and most software developers are pretty interactive in their own forums. But not Serif. That tells me they really don't care much about what we say here. This all may sound negative and a lot of it is, but I really do still have hope things can change. Current management at Serif has their own plan and they don't want to involve users in that plan. But the upside is things change. People do suddenly exit companies and then new blood comes in, which has the potential to do better or worse than those who came before. We're seeing that now with Elon Musk and Twitter. I just hope that any future shakeup at Serif will trigger (1) more Serif participation in this forum, and (2) fast-paced development of features which have long been asked for. Really, that's all we need! Keep fighting the good fight!

@Horseflesh I appreciate your kind words. I will continue to respond in this forum when people tag me like you did or reply to threads I started, but I officially would like to pass my Thorn in Serif's Flesh CROWN to you. 👑 I never once said anything in this forum that wasn't true, and I always tried to stick to facts, logic and reason. I long held fast to the hope that things would change, year after year after year. But things didn't change. Sure, there were many new features, but none that helped me or that would attract an Adobe user to Affinity apps. So while wearing your new crown, just stick to your guns, let every app-related thought that comes to your head be known, and never back down when the Affinity-only gurus in this forum come pounding, telling you to just "look on the bright side" or "Affinity hasn't been around as along as Adobe, so we can't expect much." Never settle for second best. Always shoot for greatness. Maybe one day, the folks at Serif will too. Feel free to contact me or tag me anytime.

Friend, I wish I knew! And since we're on the topic... Serif recently releases version 2.0 with "a ton of new features" and yet the most highly sought after, fundamental features like a properly functioning White Balance tool (aka, like the one in Photoshop) are still shockingly missing! Too few of my suggestions have been implemented through the MANY YEARS that I have begged and pleaded (along side other good people) in this forum, so I will not be purchasing version 2 as a result. Maybe if there's a management reshuffle at Serif, someone will finally act, implement some of my suggestions, then have a true rival to the Adobe Suite on their hands. But until then, I'm not going to be waiting around or supporting the apps further. Am I disappointed? You bet I am! Everyone who cares about their wallet hates Adobe for going to a subscription model, and while I had years of hope the Affinity apps would slowly become good enough to crush the behemoth, that hasn't happened due to the lack of key features that would easily woe Adobe-addicts to Affinity. It's so very sad. That remains true even though a large number of people love the Affinity apps. Some people are willing to compromise on certain features and therefore have few complaints about the Affinity suite. I'm not so willing to compromise and live without features important to me. That's the difference.

I've been debating folks like yourself on that very issue for the last 7 years. I shall continue to advocate for Adobe users, who comprise, no doubt, the lion's share of switchovers to the Affinity Suite. The more you can make something like an industry standard, the better, not simply to make the transition easier, but because that industry standard has some pretty darned good features that anyone would like to see -- even folks who have zero experience with the Adobe suite. But take don't the debate personally. I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm picking on a piece of software for not being better. Furthermore, I'm obviously on the losing end of the stick anyway, as per the fact these threads have existed so many years and yet continue to be ignored by Serif. But just as I pounded away at Apple's butterfly keyboard until it died and was replaced, so shall I pound here on issues that are important to the masses. If the status quo was paradise, I'd be silent. But it isn't. So I speak. Best wishes!

LOL. Yes, there is definitely "need for a change" and such is explained in detail in my similar thread here, which was started 7 years ago but which has been totally ignored by Serif (just like this thread). (At the very least, read the first several posts of that thread to see why Affinity Photo does NOT have the desired functionality.)

1. Launch Affinity PHOTO. 2. Open an image. 3. Layer (menu) > New Adjustment Layer > White Balance 4. You should now see the White Balance palette. Click the "Picker" button (there is no Eye Dropper). 5. You should now see crosshairs. Move those over a white portion of your image and click to set the White Balance. That's it. Alternatively, you could avoid digging down into the Layer menu by merely going to the right sidebar, then click on the icon that looks like this: White Balance is the second command down in that popup list.

How long ago it was implemented is something I obviously do not know. But in terms of feature requests submitted that still haven't seen the light of day, I've got many going on 5 years now. Regardless, I refuse to argue about a matter now resolved. Thank you again for brining it to our attention. That brings this particular thread to a happy close! 🙂

Very interesting how they slipped in that featured unnoticed by the rest of us in this thread. A simple, "hey guys, we listened, and here it is!" heads-up note in this thread would have be welcomed saved everyone a lot of trouble. But that is all moot now that it has been implemented. You were mildly condescending in tone (let's be honest), but your kind clarification of the new feature is nevertheless greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for having made the time to point it out to us. While there are many, MANY wanted features that remain unimplemented, the fact that this one made the cut does restore a tiny bit more faith in Serif. Great work!

You missed my opening post on page 1 of this thread which explains it all in detail. And yes, as I later explained on page 1, having popup menu convenience for multiple anti-aliasing options is far more realistic and performance enhancing than curves, however powerful those curves may be. It's been almost exactly 6 years since my opening post, and thus far, no work has been done to address the core issue which I mentioned in my opening post. A lot of Affinity app users who are pleased with the status quo fail to understand that many Adobe app users HATE the Adobe subscription model and therefore would love to use Affinity apps full time, but they refuse to do so until certain key features are added. No, they aren't expecting a Photoshop or Illustrator clone. Affinity apps aren't even close to that. But what most hardcore Adobe app users want is just a little bit more. I recognized that 6 years ago. Serif still hasn't. That's it in an nutshell.

Sorry to have to disagree with your 21,368 posts worth of experience, but Serif does NOT listen. Virtually none of the issues presented in my posts through the years have been addressed by Serif, and numerous other people share the same interest. "Obligation" means nothing. Yoda said it best... "Do or do not. There is no try." Whether Serif is under an obligation or not is irrelevant. They are not adequately engaging their own customer base, even after YEARS have passed. Ditto what I said previously. Many other software companies are active in their forums because they realize that's where their best feedback comes from. It therefore comes as no surprise that my most beloved software developers are the ones who do show clear signs that they listen, and help us, the little people, play proactive roles in moving the software forward. Excuses that praise the status quo do nothing to move the apps forward. All that does is just preach to the choir. I refuse to do that. If Steve Jobs had that yes-man personality, Apple itself wouldn't exist today. Thank you, @lastmartian for your post today. It reminded me that nothing has changed and kick-started my zeal to keep on Serif until they start to pay attention, for the good of all Affinity app users.

It's been 6 years and plenty of time for any associated development cost to be a complete non-issue, especially so when you consider that a lot of Adobe app users want to make the transition to Serif apps but don't due to the lack of key features like the one being discussed.

Serif, are you listening???

Insanity. Sheer insanity. Friend, we're talking about a Scissors tool to cut objects. That has nothing to do with quality. With the status quo of things, you have to do more operations to get the same result as less operations in Illustrator. Some hate to hear it, and go off on tangents trying to defend THE WAY THINGS ARE, but that is what I am talking about -- a tool that doesn't require you to "convert" anything and just cuts when you click once on the object.

LOL. You'll be defending the status quo until your last breath. That's fine. But I will be defending change until mine. I'm happy to agree to disagree. I think it is possible to manipulate software to do just about anything. I think if there's a will, there's always a way. I think it could be changed to please both you and me. The secret? Vision and determination. That's it in a nutshell.

LOL. Defending the status quo of doing something that takes longer is something only diehard fans could appreciate. I am totally open-minded when it comes to software. I hate the Adobe subscription model, but I prefer certain key features. And if on reads through these forums one sees I am not alone. This isn't about making Affinity a clone of Adobe apps, but rather adding something greater to an already great app. So no need to get feathers ruffled over somebody like me asking for the status quo to be disrupted for the sake of something faster. Many defended horses when cars came out. Sometimes, you need to go with what's faster, even if it pollutes more.

The specific answer to your question is this: Print: RGB (for regular printing to something like an inkjet or even for use only on a computer) Press Ready: CMYK (primarily used for offset printing) You will not see a change in the right sidebar, in the Colour format popup, until you click on one of the presets like A4 paper.

Perfect! Thank you! Perhaps you can help me understand one related thing. I went to a new document to test what you said but now I get "px" in that Stroke Width field rather than "mm". Can you tell me how to set it back to "mm"? Toggling "Show Lines in points" in the Prefs doesn't resolve that issue.

Unfortunately, I am unable to repeat this using precise steps. I had been using Affinity Designer for about an hour on my MacOS High Sierra 5K iMac with 32GB RAM, mostly with FontAwesome font pack icons placed on a new document. I was using Layer > Geometry > Divide and Create/Release Compound manipulations mostly. When I then used the Corner Tool on a sharp edge on one of the parts of an icon, Designer suddenly crashed. Attached is the crash log. I relaunched Designer and tried to reproduce the crash in vain. CrashLog_March19-2021.txt

I appreciate the above tip very much because it allows me to show the Stroke in millimeters to match my preference in Illustrator. However, the big problem is that Affinity Designer shows "0" for very thin Stroke widths, whereas Illustrator shows me exactly what I typed. For example, type in a Stroke width ("Weight") of 0.01mm in Illustrator and press Return, you will see 0.01mm in that field. That is intuitive and what you should get. Sadly, Affinity Designer shows only "0" in the field which is NOT correct. Hovering my arrow pointer over the field also shows an "unknown keyword" tooltip sometimes, despite the fact my having typed 0.01mm visually makes the line on the canvas thinner than say 0.1mm. It would therefore be appreciated if this bug in Designer can be fixed to show the exact value I typed, not some rounded down value that is absolutely wrong. 0 ≠ 0.01 Thank you.

This is the unfortunate tragedy in not having a dedicated Scissors tool like Illustrator. It's not just the conflict with Illustrator muscle memory. Productivity drops tremendously. You see, in Illustrator, I can sketch a circle, then type C to select Scissors, then click on two points on the circle to cut it. No "Convert to Curves" required. It's fast and just works. That is what we all need in Affinity Designer, if we are truly honest. Bring on the Scissors tool!

LOL. I am NOT "wrong." I do know the English language natively, so perhaps there is a translation error on your part. 🙂 "For years" & "6 years" are pretty much one and the same, my friend. It really is a long time in computer years. With that said, it doesn't matter if Adobe has been around longer than Serif. "Why not," you ask? Quite simply because we are NOT asking Serif to recreate EVERY SINGLE FEATURE of Adobe apps. You got upset and jumped to conclusions in thinking that was being asked of me and others like me. That was not and is not what is being asked. As such, any comparison between those 6 years and Adobe's app existence since the 1980's (even before Adobe acquired those apps), is largely irrelevant because we are talking about a simple few features here and there. They are key features though, which is why I keep pounding on them as people come across these ancient, spider-web laden threads originally started by me. Based on what you wrote, I seriously doubt that if I stopped what you call "whining" that you would respond in kind and suddenly stop bashing your fellow Affinity lovers over their strong persistence in asking for a few new features. Let's face it. We are in the same boat whether you like it or not. The fact we all have purchased and use Affinity apps puts us in that boat. Some of us have different needs though. It would be great if you could be more open-minded about that, but I realize some folks prefer to worship the status quo and avoid thinking beyond the box of features they already have. But here's the thing... If the existing feature set pleases you, great! I'm happy for you. I really am. But please don't bat the rest of us over the head for asking for more -- even during those times we ask for it repeatedly and even provocatively. If ultimately Serif does add more features that tickle Adobe users pink and bring even more them over to Affinity apps, those new features won't IN ANY WAY transform Affinity apps into the Adobe apps you seem to dread. Again, we're talking a few features here and there. That's it in a nutshell.

I disagree profoundly with most of the above 3 statements, although the second half of the third sentence above does seem like an admission of sympathy toward your fellow Affinity app users, which I sincerely very humbly appreciate. But I must refute the other statements as follows... Is it “respectful” to boldly say that you "don't like" your fellow Affinity users repeatedly requesting something you yourself do not find necessary? (If one answers “yes“ to that question, then one must recant and admit that users asking for features which resembles PS must also be deemed "respectful." But if one answer is “no“ to that question, then one’s own statement about "disrespect" suddenly becomes null and void.) I personally feel we give Serif our biggest "respect" when we pay them money for their software. If one tries to argue with me saying, "Yeah, but we don't pay much," I shall boldly refute such by saying, "that is the fault of Serif, not you or I!" What if Serif approached us and said, "would you pay us a bit more for some of the features you have been requesting?" I have little doubt most users who want those features would say YES! And yet, Serif has never given us such an opportunity. They don't even engage us in the forums either, unlike other developers do. So all is left is for us to express our pain and suffering as best as we can in this forum, in hopes that someone in a power position at Serif will one day read what we write, then kick the engineers in the pants to get cracking on it! Yes, I can be provocative in what I write, but so was Steve Jobs with his people. Sometimes you have to be a bit forthright to clear stubbornness out of the way and make a little progress. Some will hate you for that, but many others will love you for the end result. Next, you said you are 100% sure about Serif's intentions. That is a bold statement. Yet you do not work for Serif as per your admission of being an "outsider." Again, I appreciate your saying "the balance is not right," as that plainly justifies all I have written to date. But the fact remains you made a very big assumption on the part of Serif which you really cannot be 100% sure about. But let's analyze that by considering just how many YEARS it has been since Affinity apps first came out... What headway has Serif made in dethroning the Adobe beast in all these years? Answer: Hardly any at all. Is there any clear evidence Affinity app users are growing by leaps and bounds? No, I cannot see that. That is not the fault of price though. That is not the fault of NOT having a horrid subscription model. Serif is brilliant in having made those decisions! I sing the name of Serif unto the highest heavens for that! That is why I am still here, my friends! I really do love Serif's creations. I just find them lacking in some areas and everything within my being screams out at me to voice those deficiencies. So what then is the problem with growing our user base? Is it that people refuse to use any software without the holy "Adobe" named stamped upon it? Doubtful. Is it that people want to continuing working as they always have, with a familiar set of tools, yet without that horrid and detestable subscription model? I cannot speak for everyone here, but in my own case, that is a resounding YES! And yet, for some users of Adobe apps, the feature set of Affinity apps is still incomplete. Again, it's not like Affinity apps came out yesterday, last week or even last year. These apps have been around FOR YEARS, and yet the feature set is not advancing in such a way to break more Adobe users away from the very subscription model they hate — they do hate it, if they admit the truth. Therefore, I must logically conclude that Serif is trying to forge its own path without thinking much of Adobe users, merely hoping that Affinity becomes so popular in the market that popularity alone will magnetically pull Adobe users toward Affinity apps. But if that is indeed the way they think (and I am not "100%" sure about that), Serif is deliberately overlooking the fact that to become big in this market, you must pull users away from Adobe. How does one pull users away from Adobe, you ask? Answer: COMPELLING FEATURES! That is the very heart of this thread and my other feature request threads. All said... Serif, please stop dilly-dallying and just implement "Set White Point, Photoshop-style." We want it. You know it would be great. Now be like Nike and JUST DO IT. THANK YOU!

Better not talk about it too loudly or @fde101 will be telling you that "your expectations are not in line with reality." 🙂 The sad reality is that Serif really doesn't care. If they did, it would have been implemented by now or they would have cared enough to have one person from their company actually read this forum and chime in now and then. I am in the forums of other software where it's a night and day difference. Some developers care, while others don't.

In the midst of a dark and dreary pandemic, I certainly appreciate a good laugh. The folk at Affinity knowing the word "soon"! LOL! (I started this thread on July 14, 2015.)