iconoclast

Ist das denn nur in Designer so? Wenn die ganze Seite "wegschwimmt" klingt das für mich eher nach einem Maus-Problem oder so. Ich meine mich zu erinnern so ein Verhalten mal vor vielen Jahren irgendwo, in einem anderen Programm gesehen zu haben. Bei manchen Problemen hilft es die Hardware-Beschleunigung (unter Menü "Bearbeiten" > "Einstellungen" > "Performance") zu deaktivieren. Keine Ahnung ob das hier helfen könnte.

Yes.

Possibly yes. But the umbrella people would cover much more of the background scene. And I don't know if that would look good. Even because of the direction the three figures are looking.

The darker shadow looks better now, I think. But to be honest, there is a problem that becomes much more noticeable now. It is again the lighting angle. The two persons under the umbrella look OK for me, but the fireman gets the light more from the left side, while he should get it more from his front side. At least related to the people under the umbrella, that should normally get the light more from the left than he does. Hope you understand what I mean. My english is not very good.

Yes, now the figures in front of the scene fit much better to each other. I would give the fireman on the left of the scene a darker shadow on his back (as I already said). That would look more realistic, I think, and it would lead the regard of the spectator to the core scene in the background.

Yes, but, as I said, it doesn't convert pixels into pathes, but only the selections. And vice versa. It's the same, by the way, in Photoshop. I personally don't know any image editing program that has an option for autotracing. That's usually a function in vector graphics software. Initially, this opportunity to convert selections into pathes and pathes into selections was made for composings, I think. To release image objects from their backgrounds. The opportunity to use it for outlines is rather a gimmick, I think.

That has nothing to do with autotracing. GIMP doesn't offer autotracing (like e.g. Inkscape) too. Autotracing means to convert pixels into vector pathes. But GIMP only converts the selection - the marching ants - into a vector path. And it has the option to trace this vector path with a pixel based stroke of arbitrary thickness or even with a brush stroke.

That's of course a nice workflow, but the option e.g. GIMP offers is much easier and more flexible. Simply convert the selection into a vector path (step 1) and then trace the path (step 2). In the second step you can also define the stroke thickness. And if you want to change the thickness of the stroke, you still have the vector path to trace it again with another thickness or even with brush strokes. I think it is not one of the most important options for an image editing software. But it is sometimes nice to have it.

You mean the option to convert a pixel selection into a stroke (like you can do e.g. in GIMP by converting the selection into a path, that can be traced then)? This option doesn't exist in Affinity Photo as far as I know. As far as I remember this topic already has been discussed somewhen somewhere in this forums. Could be a candidate for the Feature Requests.

Yes, that looks better. I would make it a little less slanted. This looks like a storm now. Think of, that a storm or even stronger wind would also cause e.g. clothes and hair to flap, and the guy in the foreground wouldn't be able to hold his umbrella so upright. A little bit of wind should be enough. And there is still the problem with the raindrops. Your drops that bounce from top of the ambulance have the same size as the drops that bounce from the umbrella in the foreground. And it doesn't look realistic how the light interacts with the rain. I can't say from memory how that should exactly look like. Maybe google for "Nightrain".

I would say, that the tree looks like the wind is coming from the right.

It's a little bit better. But I wouldn't let the rain fall exactly vertical. Of course even not horizontal, but with a slight angle. To suggest a little bit of wind, what would correlate with the cloudy sky and the tree in the background. It would even look more dynamic and create more suspense. And I would add more than one layer of rain, because there would be more rain between the spectator and the paramedics in the background than between them and the people in the foreground. And it doesn't make sense, that the falling rain appears as blurred shadow stripes, while the bouncing rain appears as bright drops. Hope you understand what I mean.

I'm still not lucky with the lighting. The fireman on the left is lightened by the lamp in front of him. That's almost OK, I think. Only the shadow on his back could be darker. But the woman that stands a little bit on the left behind him is lightened from the opposite side. That doesn't make sense. Even because the lighting on the guy directly behind her (the one with the umbrella) anon comes from a different side. And the raindrops irritate me too. They would be lightened by the lamp too, and wouldn't be so bright. And they wouldn't be only around the umbrella and the roof of the ambulance. Rain would cover the whole scene as directional blurred stripes. They would bounce of the umbrella and the ambulance, but from the people around too. And if there is no falling rain, there wouldn't be raindrops bouncing of from anything. I think, I would create much less rain, because it would also make the ground and the people wet. That would result in much more contrast in lights and shadows.

Does disabling "Standard Ligatures" in the "Typographie" panel help?

Yes, that's a part of the problem on Windows too. Another part of the problem is that the screen resolutions are much higher today. But I don't understand all technical coherences. It is simply progress, and that is of course good. E.G. that we don't need to ruin our eyes with old CRT-monitors any longer. But on the other hand many of the beloved programs we had great times with, are useless today, and there aren't always real substitutes for it. Yes, you are right, it's another topic.