gunda

I support the general thrust of this feature request, and #1 preserve numbers in particular, especially for monochrome.  I need to be able to simulate how a print will look without a profile conversion.  I can't ditch Photoshop without it, and boy, I'd like to.

What you're suggesting is a fairly standard way of working for most photographers who then print using the ICC.  But there are other workflows which many photographers may view as fringe, but which are fairly standard in the publishing industry.  In my case, I want to soft-proof using the ICC, but in a way that shows me what the output will look like if I don't print using the ICC.  In PS you o this by enabling the preserve numbers soft-proofing option.  There are valid uses for this approach, which is why PS includes it.  Can't be done in AP at present.
I also find soft-proofing via a layer to be a risky approach, rather than using a view mode.  I've done something like this in PS in the past, since some ICCs can be simulated via a curve, and there's a risk of leaving the layer enabled when you don't want it.  Operator error, sure, but it's always going to be a risk with this approach.

What you're suggesting is a fairly standard way of working for most photographers who then print using the ICC.  But there are other workflows which many photographers may view as fringe, but which are fairly standard in the publishing industry.  In my case, I want to soft-proof using the ICC, but in a way that shows me what the output will look like if I don't print using the ICC.  In PS you o this by enabling the preserve numbers soft-proofing option.  There are valid uses for this approach, which is why PS includes it.  Can't be done in AP at present.
I also find soft-proofing via a layer to be a risky approach, rather than using a view mode.  I've done something like this in PS in the past, since some ICCs can be simulated via a curve, and there's a risk of leaving the layer enabled when you don't want it.  Operator error, sure, but it's always going to be a risk with this approach.

Yes, it's puzzling.  If this was just a budget, no-frills alternative to PS then I could understand it.  But it's part of a suite of three products seemingly aimed at the publishing industry, and so you think that industry standard features for publishing and printing would find their way into the product sooner or later.
I realise that there are competing priorities, and you can't work on everything simultaneously, especially at the current price, but even so, see previous para.

I support the general thrust of this feature request, and #1 preserve numbers in particular, especially for monochrome.  I need to be able to simulate how a print will look without a profile conversion.  I can't ditch Photoshop without it, and boy, I'd like to.

I support the general thrust of this feature request, and #1 preserve numbers in particular, especially for monochrome.  I need to be able to simulate how a print will look without a profile conversion.  I can't ditch Photoshop without it, and boy, I'd like to.

Thanks @gunda that works well enough! 
@GarryP Sorry my request was vague. Here's a good example: I wanted to draw a circle to highlight something in another bug report. There is no "stroke selection" command but using Gunda's Outline basically did the same thing. May I suggest that the default outline of 0 pts is useless to users, and the default should probably be 1? I hope you consider adding Stroke in the future. 

@gunda Thanks, this worked as a good enough workaround for me

Speaking as another new user who went looking for this, the other posters who suggested outline are correct for a basic stroke:
1. make your selection.
2. from the select menu, choose the second to bottom option, outline.
3. select a non-zero radius to set the stroke thickness, and select inside, outside or centre, as you would in Photoshop edit | stroke
4.  choose the flood fill tool and choose your colour from the swatches tab
5.  Click inside the selection.  You may need to create a pixel layer if you don't have one already selected or if you want the stroke on a separate layer.  If the stroke is very narrow, you may need to zoom-in in order to use the flood fill tool.
Certainly do-able, but an edit | stroke command would be more efficient and also useful to ease the transition from PS.

What you're suggesting is a fairly standard way of working for most photographers who then print using the ICC.  But there are other workflows which many photographers may view as fringe, but which are fairly standard in the publishing industry.  In my case, I want to soft-proof using the ICC, but in a way that shows me what the output will look like if I don't print using the ICC.  In PS you o this by enabling the preserve numbers soft-proofing option.  There are valid uses for this approach, which is why PS includes it.  Can't be done in AP at present.
I also find soft-proofing via a layer to be a risky approach, rather than using a view mode.  I've done something like this in PS in the past, since some ICCs can be simulated via a curve, and there's a risk of leaving the layer enabled when you don't want it.  Operator error, sure, but it's always going to be a risk with this approach.

Yes, it's puzzling.  If this was just a budget, no-frills alternative to PS then I could understand it.  But it's part of a suite of three products seemingly aimed at the publishing industry, and so you think that industry standard features for publishing and printing would find their way into the product sooner or later.
I realise that there are competing priorities, and you can't work on everything simultaneously, especially at the current price, but even so, see previous para.

Bear in mind
You also have the New Document from Snapshot option which lets you duplicate a document without actually saving it to disk.
Useful for temporary comparison purposes or experimentation on a copy of your document