Armelline

I'd definitely class it as inappropriate for the context and a bit rude, but it's one of the mildest of the "rude words" and, here at least, nobody would bat an eye if it's used on daytime TV. I respect your opinion, though, even if I don't agree with it, and to keep this on topic I still really want crop to selection.

Though he could definitely have expressed himself better, it's a bit far to call "crap" "foul language".

If I group the layers then crop I've already got the result I want It's the cropping part that's not currently easy to do.

That works if you only want to crop to a single selected layer. My most frequent use-case for "Crop to Selection" is other apps is to select multiple layers, crop to edges of the widest layers (one layer may be higher, one might protrude more to the left etc. so no single layer is sufficient to define the bounds). Then I can easily export each layer with a consistent image size, padding each image as needed to ensure they all end up the same dimensions. I've not found an easy way to do that in AP yet, though I'm sure there is one. Sadly slecting then copying then creating a new document doesn't help in my use-case. Though I'll be delighted to be corrected on that.

We're just going round in circles here. I've requested a mod provide clarificaton as to how they want this issue handled. I really don't see how you think people will benefit from posting it in another forum where there is already a topic that has been equally ignored and has far less visibility for new users seeking information and potential workarounds, but I guess these forums aren't actually intended to help users, perhaps. I think it's best we both stop spamming this thread with off-topic arguments about what is and isn't off-topic as neither of us are doing anything helpful here and are just cluttering up this thread which, you seem determined to claim, is already full of off-topic stuff like discussing crop-to-selection.

That's a very shortsighted way of looking at it. So discussion of reasons why it's needed and workaround solutions hold no merit? Where exactly should those take place? They seem even less relevant in the Feature Requests forum. I'm genuinely baffled by why you have such a vendetta against this feature and this thread. Being annoyed by notifications really isn't enough to explain it.

> But there is also what I hope is an obvious purpose for breaking it down into different sub-forums, each devoted to the discussion of different kinds of things, like questions about how to use the apps, features we would like to see implemented, tutorials, resources, tutorials, bug reporting, & beta versions. This is a top being discussed in a relevant way in a relevant post in a relevant forum. The vast majority of this thread is discussing if the feature is possible and how to accomplish a similar result. I'm still really not sure why there's such resistance to that discussion. Unless a mod comes in and deems this topic off-topic or spent, then users of this forum will continue to view this as the best place to discuss the feature, it's absence and workarounds. All of which seems very relevant to me. In fact, the only really off-topic part of this thread is our bickering about if it's the place to discuss these things.

> It is not visible to the developers here because (as already been explained several times) they are not going to waste time sorting through the thousands posts this forum gets when they are (& should be!!!) working on the code. Which is why there is a feature request for it too. Nobody expects the developers to be reading every thread on the forums (though it would be very disappointing if they don't have any kind of community manager who tracks discussions and provides them indications of the hot topics). I'm honestly not sure what the purpose of discussion forums are if not to discuss things. In decades on the internet I've never been on a forum as resistant to discussions as this one seems to be. > As for it being useless to discuss it in the features forum, if you have not done so already, please go back & read the info at the top of the page here, particularly the things they ask users to keep in mind, especially about how they prioritize what features they work on. That just confirms how it's equally useless to discuss it there. In fact, it confirms that there is no useful way to request features in this software, and engaging in the community is pretty much pointless.

> 1) unproductive with respect to expected results This seems to be true of posting anywhere on these forums. > 2) frustrating especially for new members and new users of the software If by this you mean "it's incredibly frustrating to see this basic feature being discussed for years with no implementation" then yes, absolutely. > At the same time, it's important for newer members and newer users to know that this thread's lengthy existence is neither an indicator of how many user requests have been made for this feature nor a reflection of this feature's priority in the eyes of the developers. This seems very true. It doesn't seem to matter at all how often this feature is requested, either in this thread or in the requests forum.

It's equally useless discussing it in the features requests forums, so it makes sense to keep the discussion where it is most visible and active. If the notifications are bothering you so much, though, perhaps you should petition a mod to lock this thread and add a post pointing people to the feature request.

Genuinely confused why there's such resistance to this topic being discussed in this thread. There is a feature request already, it's not like there isn't one. This thread, however, has been the focal point of discussion *for years.* If this discussion is not appropriate for this forum, perhaps it should get locked?

By "ignored requests" I just mean "have seen dozens of requests for this feature of the past few years and not acknowleged them in any way or given any sign they're considering the feature." I don't expect the devs to reply to every thread, or even any threads. This isn't the kind of company with that sort of community outreach, not all are. As has been stated several times in this thread, this thread is just discussing the issue. There are already multiple ones in the requests forums. We do understand that. I really don't see why some people are so reluctant to have this issue discussed here.

They've ignored the feature request for this over there too. For years. Dozens of requests expressed in different and similar ways. That forum gets ignored just as much as this one does, sadly. And I notice that posts on that forum also always receive the same "you can already do that" dismissal that is so common on these forums.

Also having this issue when creating a gradient. No matter what I try I can't get rid of gthe obvious banding. Anyone figured this out since it was last posted?

Nobody has in any way claimed it is useless. I'm honestly not sure how you got that from any of the comments, especially my last one. But we're just going round in cricles at this point. And as Peter said, most of the discussion since you posted it has been about the underlying issue and the response some people have had to it, certainly not aimed at you specifically. All you did was hop in and provide a helpful macro! I genuinely did appreciate that. If you're missing anything I think it's possibly the same thing as some others in this thread - that just because there *are* ways to do what we want, that doesn't make our request for this feature any less valid.

He didn't do that at all. He just explained how it doesn't solve the specific issue this thread is about. I think it's just that he, like I, is getting increasingly frustrated by the attitude on these forums of "What you want can be achieved using these steps so your request is unnecessary and borderline stupid." I know that's not what you were trying to say by posting your macro, and I for one downloaded it and appreciated it for what it does do. However, if left entirely unchallenged it will be pointed to as proof that this feature isn't needed, like has been done before in these threads, when it (though useful, for sure) doesn't fully solve the core problem being discussed.

What makes you think he's upset by you sharing it, if I may ask?

> First of all, Affinity Photo is not Adobe Photoshop. Functions that exist in Photoshop did not grow into the programme overnight. Nobody was expecting Affinity Photo to match Photoshop's feature set. But Affinity Photo is hardly a young program at this point. Not including this must be a deliberate choice and for some of us that's confusing. > Of course, it's easier when you're served hot soup instead of having to make it yourself. Well that's staggeringly condescending. It always impresses me just how condescending the people on these forums can be. > Cutting a selection is destructive Why? Why should this type of cropping be more destructive than the standard cropping? > If you no longer need the original and want to save the selection with the original name, you can create a macro that automates the necessary steps. Here, for example, invert selection, delete, deselect, limit canvas, rasterise layer, and save. Ignoring your assumption that it has to be destructive, that's an awful lot of steps to achieve a simple task. Why is it so unreasonable for us to want to a one or two step way of achieving this result? Are you saying that anything that can currently be done in Affinity Photo using 5+ steps should never be streamlined into a one step process? > Have I forgotten a step? There's that condescension again. > But yes, it is easier to have the worm brought to you than to look for it yourself. Oh look, more condescension. > And you have to remember that Serif has a much smaller development budget than Adobe. So the developers at Serif have to weigh up what to include in the programme. As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, this likely wouldn't be a very complicated thing to implement. And let's not ignore that the latest update included some incredibly niche features and improvements while this is basically a standard of photo editing applications and has multiple forum posts with hundreds of responses about it. It's okay to say "I don't need this, but perhaps others would find it valuable."

But it doesn't. It isn't always better. Dragging those crop handles is better sometimes, but sometimes it's just fundamentally worse than cropping to selection. Unless I'm missing something, maybe? Let's say I have 30 layers with icons on. I want to crop to the biggest icon of the layers. In Photoshop I can just select that one by shift clicking on the layer list, highlighting the outline as a selection, then crop to selection. No dragging to find the edges, just a couple of clicks and it's done. I've not seen a single workaround method for Affinity Photo that can do that even close to as easily. Maybe I've missed it. But the Affinity method is only "better" under some circumstances. And as others have said, having it simply automatically snap the current crop tool to the selected area gives the best of both worlds. I genuinely don't understand the reluctance so many on these forums have to conceding that this might occasionally be useful.

Adding another voice to this request. Sure there are more cumbersome ways of achieving the result, but a simple, clean "select an area, crop to that area" option would be much much more preferable.

I genuinely confused by how this is still a matter of debate. The request is so simple, so reasonable, and for a method so much easier than any of the alternative methods being suggested. I'm baffled by why anyone would *not* want this feature to be available. It's absolutely the thing I miss most about Photoshop. Sure I can achieve the same result with considerably more effort, but I've not seen a single good reason why the feature as requested couldn't or shouldn't be implemented. What am I missing here?