Herbert123

Oh, I apologize. I work both on Mac and Windows, and I am tool agnostic - I am always on the lookout for new interesting tools (especially with Adobe's digital serfdom, and on the Mac I use both Photoline and Affinity Photo - though admittedly still more Photoline than AF Photo at the moment. People here compare Affinity Photo continuously with Photoshop, and I indeed compare with Photoline in a similar fashion.
 
Affinity photo misses certain features I use on a daily basis in Photoline (and used to use in Photoshop), and even Photoshop cannot compare with Photoline in terms of the layer stack (in my opinion). Of course, each application has its strengths and areas it could improve upon. For example, I do my digital painting in Krita nowadays, and AF Photo, Photoshop, or Photoline all pale in comparison for that type of work.
 
I do not believe in the "one app for all jobs" paradigm: a good carpenter has many great tools in his toolbox - and so do I (but I will not rent my software - same analogy: why rent your hammers?).
 
I suppose I stand out a bit because Photoline users are not that incredibly common - so when I compare both apps here, obviously I am kinda on my own (except maybe for one or two other users - Quarian? ;-). Most users compare Affinity Photo with Photoshop, and will not be called out on that - which is understandable, since it is a very common comparison to make. Every user here uses or has used Photoshop at some point, I assume. And I do really miss certain layer features in AF Photo - a smart object alternative would be great, for example. Or external file layers.
 
Anyway, I think each application can learn from the others as to how improve certain areas. I also told the Photoline devs a couple of weeks ago how they could improve their application by looking at how Affinity Photo implemented features. For example, the on-canvas filters, i.e. the lighting filter (which I sorely miss in Photoline!).
 
You gain some features, you lose some features. I will be more careful in future posts here, and compare less with Photoline. Or Photoshop ;-P

Hey, another PhotoLine user! Not to say that Affinity Photo is lacking in any way but the wise carpenter uses more than one tool in his belt.
 
I also work cross-platform and PhotoLine allows me to work in Windows when I'm working with PagePlus.

Due to Adobe's rather lacking documentation, it is very difficult for third-party developers to support all of Photoshop's features.
 
I also work in Photoline, and the newest betas do import smart objects and art boards. If the smart object is a bitmap layered one generated within Photoshop, it is imported as an embedded placeholder, which can be opened and edited just as in Photoshop - even the layers are retained. It literally opens the psb file. But embedded text layers are converted to bitmap layers, and shape layers may disappear.
 
When I tested a CC2015 PSD file with a smart object which contains a placed Illustrator object, Photoline would even open that file more or less correct: the vectors remain intact, but the scaling is off compared to the original. Currently Photoline's workaround is to also include a rasterized version which does look correct.
 
In short, developers are pretty much left to their own device in regards to figuring out the intricacies of the PSD format.

Virtual cloned layers which respond in realtime when any changes are made in the original source layer. This is possible in both Krita and Photoline.
 
Also allow for layer masks to be cloned, and re-used, and even adjustment layers. Super handy in Photoline.

Layer opacity with a range beyond 0-100%. Photoline allows for a range from -200% up to +200%. This allows for so much flexibility beyond what other image editors have on offer.
 
Wish to double the effect of a layer's blend mode? Increase up to 200. Invert the effect of a layer (even an adjustment layer)? Use a negative value in the layer opacity.
 
Tremendously useful. I keep wondering why no other software thought of this before.

Yes… just like that! Always there, simple to use.
 
So few people use tabs and indents properly for good layout, and I think it's because it's usually a bit awkward or just hidden.
 
It's a pity so many people are constantly asking for Illustrator features to be worked into Designer, when FreeHand has better features that also match Designer a bit better. I'm enjoying Designer because it feels more like a modern version of FreeHand rather than an Illustrator-knockoff.
 
I see you working in PhotoLine. I dabbled in it a few years back and was impressed since it was one of the few image editors around that had CMYK support. If it's free, then I wonder if it's based on opensource code that might allow for easy/legal feature integration. (no patents to have to work around).
 
Here's a thought: Maybe we should all be looking to PhotoLine, Gimp, Scribus and InkScape for feature inspiration rather than Adobe, Corel and Xara. At least we'd know the features are available and possible, rather than blocked by lawyers.   :D   (Maybe this needs its own discussion thread)

Funny you mention Freehand: I found Photoline's tab ruler to be almost a copy of Freehand's version. The text ruler even rotates with the textbox, just like Freehand. :-)
 
I agree with you that such a text ruler is very handy.
 

Photoshop's "Save for Web" feature is being phased out in the latest version: it is considered a 'legacy' feature, and will disappear in the next version.
 
As for the PNG optimization in "Save for Web": it is terrible:
- no support for alpha transparency and indexed-based coloured PNG
- no support to reduce the number of colours to 512, or 1024, or an arbitrary number of colours
- a lack of dithering controls, and misc other PNG options.
- resultant file PNG file size for assets with alpha transparency is dreadful compared to other (free) tools.
- in Illustrator the anti-aliasing and downsampling quality is downright useless. Avoid.
 
In short: photoshop's Save for Web function is the worst option out there for PNG optimization and quality control.
 
The best alternative for PNG optimization is currently ColorQuantizer (http://x128.ho.ua/color-quantizer.html). Unfortunately, this is unavailable for Macs. An alternative (with almost no control over conversion settings) would be ImagOptim, but it only supports lossless PNG optimization https://imageoptim.com/
 
Color Quantizer is so good, it is worth running it in a virtual box or Wine environment on your Mac.

Photoshop's "Save for Web" feature is being phased out in the latest version: it is considered a 'legacy' feature, and will disappear in the next version.
 
As for the PNG optimization in "Save for Web": it is terrible:
- no support for alpha transparency and indexed-based coloured PNG
- no support to reduce the number of colours to 512, or 1024, or an arbitrary number of colours
- a lack of dithering controls, and misc other PNG options.
- resultant file PNG file size for assets with alpha transparency is dreadful compared to other (free) tools.
- in Illustrator the anti-aliasing and downsampling quality is downright useless. Avoid.
 
In short: photoshop's Save for Web function is the worst option out there for PNG optimization and quality control.
 
The best alternative for PNG optimization is currently ColorQuantizer (http://x128.ho.ua/color-quantizer.html). Unfortunately, this is unavailable for Macs. An alternative (with almost no control over conversion settings) would be ImagOptim, but it only supports lossless PNG optimization https://imageoptim.com/
 
Color Quantizer is so good, it is worth running it in a virtual box or Wine environment on your Mac.

A work-around solution is to download ImageAlpha http://pngmini.com/
 
Export as full 24bit transparent PNG files in Affinity, and optimize in ImageAlpha.
For images which require more than 256 colours, ImageOptim is a good choice on Mac.
https://imageoptim.com/
 
If you have access to Windows, the best overall solution is ColorQuantizer. http://x128.ho.ua/color-quantizer.html
Any number of colours, with numerous down-sampling algorithms, many quality options, and a custom quality mask brush for precise control.

OpenEXR would only make sense if 32 bit per channel support is added.

Alternatively you could invest in FilterForge, which offers more than 11.000 filter and texture effects. It will run as either a Photoshop plugin or stand-alone. The creative filter section by itself consists of almost 1000 effects. And each filter often offers ten times or more control compared to Photoshop's creative filters.
 
https://www.filterforge.com/
 
Three filters and three minutes later (okay, I did add a cloud texture in overlay mode) to darken things a bit):
 

 
 
   

Truth be told, Adobe HAS removed many features from their software, and those either were not replaced, or only after a very long time. For example, the oil painting filter was removed from Photoshop, as was Kuler and Mini Bridge. With the CS5 release an assortment of tools were missing, such as the Pattern Maker.
 
Two years ago Flash lost essential tools: the bone tools and curves: these were only reintroduced a couple of months ago. Dreamweaver lost many features which were never redeveloped by Adobe. And many apps were completely abandoned without warning by Adobe (Fireworks, GoLive, Freehand, LiveMotion, and so on, and so forth).
 
Adobe did far worse than removing a beta feature in a beta version, and a feature at that which will return in the full release.

Jack of all trades, master of none. 'nuff said.

Yes, that would be handy: the dehaze in Photoline is non-destructive, and it makes it easy to adjust it later after applying other adjustments.