[Crop according to selection]

As I've posted elsewhere, I don't understand the pushback against this feature request. This is useful and speeds up the workflow for many people. 

1. "But it's a destructive workflow".

Maybe, but it's what I need for my workflow to be productive. You can still have your 'non-destructive' workflow if this feature is added.

2. "But you can just copy the layer to a new document"

I'm cropping to selection 1000 times in a day and your workflow will add hours to my project.

3. "Add talking point here"

Why are you so opposed to adding this feature when it clearly will benefit a lot of people, while taking away nothing from your workflow?

Please stop trying to convince the people who are requesting this feature that they don't really need it, or can just use some alternative workflow. It's condescending of you to assume that just because you don't find a use for it, no one else will. This is a basic feature that is present in most other serious Photo editing apps, and having it in Affinity Photo will just make a great tool better and more versatile. 

[is Crop to selection possible]

17 hours ago, Komatös said:

@Debra35 

First of all, Affinity Photo is not Adobe Photoshop. Functions that exist in Photoshop did not grow into the programme overnight. 
Of course, it's easier when you're served hot soup instead of having to make it yourself. What I mean to say is that many missing functions can also be created with macros. 
Cutting a selection is destructive and would be a good idea if you no longer need the original, otherwise you would have to save it in a new file anyway; you might as well save a new document from the selection.
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. Have I forgotten a step?

But yes, it is easier to have the worm brought to you than to look for it yourself.

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. 

I also miss a few things in Affinity Photo, but as I wrote, Affinity Photo is not Photoshop. 

1. Again, a good tool makes things easier, not harder. 

2. Google 'Photoshop Alternative' and Affinity Photo makes 9/10 'alternative lists'. Whether you agree or not, Affinity Photo is considered an alternative to Photoshop, and the folks at Serif are doing nothing to contradict that. You can't look at Photoshop and Affinity Photo side by side and proclaim with seriousness that the latter isn't trying to replicate the former. 

3. It doesn't matter whether you think my workflow is destructive or not. If I need to achieve something and my 'destructive workflow' gets me to that goal 5 times faster than the alternative, then why on earth would I take a longer and more difficult route instead? 

4. Smaller budget. Yeah, I think they could have squeezed it in since this thread started in 2017. Not expecting, nor wanting Adobe bloat level updates. Just basic stuff - which others have noted - is found in free alternatives. 

Bottom line is that there are two serious contenders to Photoshop; Gimp and Affinity Photo. But for some reason Affinity Photo is having an identity crisis about what it wants to be, and for even more explicable and strange reasons, Affinity Photo fans are working overtime to reject suggestions for alternative workflows, which wouldn't take away anything they already have and love, but instead add features that would draw a larger crowd.

I wonder why that is...A simple crop selection feature won't take ANYTHING away from your workflow. Why are you so opposed to me adding it to mine? How is adding this feature going to hurt you?

[is Crop to selection possible]

Oh, wow lol. 4+ years later and this hasn't been fixed yet?

The tone of this thread and the condescending answers is disappointing. Good tools are supposed to give people the maximum number of options to create content with the minimum amount of resistance.

Just because someone is locked into a certain kind of workflow, doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. It's arrogant - and ignorant - to assume that INSERT FEATURE HERE is of no use, just because you don't personally need it. While most people are okay with a few missing features and a bit of a learning curve when switching from Photoshop to Affinity Photo, it’s not expected that something as basic and popular as cropping the selection is missing in Affinity Photo.

Answers and excuses range from 'non-destructive workflow' to various workarounds, like copying the selection into a new document. This all misses the fundamental point of good tools providing more options, not less, to work how the user wants to work, and not forcing or limiting them. Common sense dictates that if Photoshop does something two, three or four times faster than Affinity Photo then the latter is doing something wrong.