Bit Dissapointed

Hi,
I use Levels to adjust color balance in photos and do color grading but in the iPad version it is not possible because there is no histogram with sliders for tones like in all the other similar apps.
I think that you should rewrite the program so there is a histogram with sliders (se the attached image from Photomator app on iPad), otherwise this feature is quite useless. 

Coding Affinity Designer to save and open Adobe Illustrator files in AI format would involve several complex steps and considerations:
Understanding AI File Format: Adobe Illustrator's AI file format is proprietary, meaning it's not openly documented. Serif would need to understand the structure and encoding of AI files, which could require reverse engineering or obtaining licensing information from Adobe. Developing Import and Export Functionality: Once the AI file format is understood, Serif would need to develop import and export functions in Affinity Designer. This includes parsing AI files to read them correctly and generating AI files that adhere to Adobe's standards. Compatibility and Feature Mapping: Illustrator and Affinity Designer have different features and ways of handling graphics. Serif would need to map these features as closely as possible. This can be challenging, especially for features unique to Illustrator. Testing and Quality Assurance: Extensive testing is required to ensure that files are correctly opened and saved, and that the formatting and features are preserved across both platforms. Legal and Licensing Issues: Since AI is a proprietary format, Serif might face legal and licensing issues. They would likely need to negotiate with Adobe for the rights to use their format, which could involve significant legal and financial considerations. Continuous Updates and Maintenance: Adobe Illustrator is regularly updated, which could affect the AI file format. Serif would need to continuously update Affinity Designer to maintain compatibility. User Interface and Experience: Integrating AI file support must be done in a way that's seamless and intuitive for the users, fitting into Affinity Designer's existing user interface and workflows. Performance Optimization: Working with AI files could introduce new performance challenges, especially for complex files. Optimization would be essential to maintain a smooth user experience. In summary, implementing AI file support in Affinity Designer is not just a simple coding task. It involves technical, legal, and practical challenges and would require significant resources and expertise.

It is a bottomless pit of work and endless problems for Serif and customers, and if one expects that the exchange of files back and forth between customers and suppliers or between creatives will work, then one will be disappointed.
This is what makes it complex, not the file format:

Coding Affinity Designer to save and open Adobe Illustrator files in AI format would involve several complex steps and considerations:
Understanding AI File Format: Adobe Illustrator's AI file format is proprietary, meaning it's not openly documented. Serif would need to understand the structure and encoding of AI files, which could require reverse engineering or obtaining licensing information from Adobe. Developing Import and Export Functionality: Once the AI file format is understood, Serif would need to develop import and export functions in Affinity Designer. This includes parsing AI files to read them correctly and generating AI files that adhere to Adobe's standards. Compatibility and Feature Mapping: Illustrator and Affinity Designer have different features and ways of handling graphics. Serif would need to map these features as closely as possible. This can be challenging, especially for features unique to Illustrator. Testing and Quality Assurance: Extensive testing is required to ensure that files are correctly opened and saved, and that the formatting and features are preserved across both platforms. Legal and Licensing Issues: Since AI is a proprietary format, Serif might face legal and licensing issues. They would likely need to negotiate with Adobe for the rights to use their format, which could involve significant legal and financial considerations. Continuous Updates and Maintenance: Adobe Illustrator is regularly updated, which could affect the AI file format. Serif would need to continuously update Affinity Designer to maintain compatibility. User Interface and Experience: Integrating AI file support must be done in a way that's seamless and intuitive for the users, fitting into Affinity Designer's existing user interface and workflows. Performance Optimization: Working with AI files could introduce new performance challenges, especially for complex files. Optimization would be essential to maintain a smooth user experience. In summary, implementing AI file support in Affinity Designer is not just a simple coding task. It involves technical, legal, and practical challenges and would require significant resources and expertise.

Hey there,
Coming from Adobe Camera RAW, there are a couple of settings that are still sorely missed inside of Affinity Photo. Namely the ability to make changes to the Hue, Saturation and Luminance via a "HSL" section, as well as a "Camera Calibration" section that would allow to change the way in which the primaries are interpreted before any of the other settings of the Develop Persona are being applied.
This link gives a better idea of what is possible inside ACR: Render Impeccable Skin Tone Easily, Using Camera Raw & A Slider You Didn’t Know Existed
Having this functionality would really make a big difference in how RAW pictures could be developed inside Affinity Photo - at the moment things still feel a bit too basic.

I started offering fruits and flowers and chants to the gods for real a Lock feature, hopefully they grant my wish any day now…   

This is one of the features that has received the most criticism and feedback throughout the life of the Affinity programs, so it makes sense for Serif to look at the functionality with new - and also different - eyes.
And not as a rushed, ill-thought-out attempt to please fix, thank you, but it could much better fit into a larger usability improvement of the entire layers panel, of which there are also some functional shortcomings that could be added. And a horrible, horrible visual clutter that needs to be eradicated or at the very least configured to be invisible.
A pretty solid group of user stories for a single release. Perhaps with a few improvements to follow in the next release, but with the architecture and concept put in place in the first release.

Hello,
It would be nice on the iPad interface to have a duplicate count option. I create allot of mandalas and repeating patterns on the iPad. The duplicate feature is great. It would be nice to have a duplicate and then option to enter the number of duplicates and the angle of rotation. Yes I can duplicate one, rotate and hit duplicate again. When creating a pattern of 100 objects this is time consuming. Maybe allow doublet on the pencil to any command? That would be super handy as well. On my desktop machine it is very quick with the keyboard but I primarily work on the iPad as the pencil is what I use most. 
If this option exists please point me in the direction to the documentation that describes how to do this. 
Thank you.

Serif understimates the user's ability to do something unintentional, unlikely or self-destructive far too often. Give us a real lock. Put the developer mindset in a box behind Ash's desk only to be left out by Patrick to roam when it knows how to respect best practices instead of forcing its version of logic on the user... hire a usability expert who is passionate only for the user and let them go in and correct.
*(Why would you not want to help the user?)

The export quality in Affinity Designer has not yet been improved. However, the problem of export quality has been known for years. Adobe delivers professional export quality and Affinity unfortunately does not. What use are new functions such as a spiral tool that I hardly ever use if the export quality is simply not right? Serif obviously doesn't realise how important flawless export quality is.

The best way to introduce bloat is by not planning or thinking, or not consulting usability specialists.
It's probably best to hear the background from a non-apologist. I remember the story behind select same in Affinity, which was panic before closing time. It happened years ago that customers were unhappy that there were so few new features in Designer release after release that Serif introduced select same at the last minute in a release. In the best of intentions, but in bad and minimalistic style. It was literally thrown into Designer as a last minute filler. Obviously a low-hanging fruit.
Like another beachcomber, the then hastily implemented UI and methodology now drifts with the release stream year after year as technical debt and usability debt. I was naive enough at the time to think that the user interface would get an overhaul after that, I'm not so naive anymore.
So it's good that you point out one of the shortcomings. Thank you for pointing it out.
Just to clarify my own interests. I don't really need select same, I just remember the background. Personally, I miss search by NAME in the layers panel, so I can easily find individual elements. It's hard enough even in structured layers when there are thousands of objects and layers. And when the object I'm looking for is unique...
I should also - to be fair - point out that Designer actually got some of the missing attention later on. I think Designer is by far the most interesting program of the three because it performs so well and because it is clearly different from many other graphic programs, you can utilize it for very specific types of designs in a way I have not seen elsewhere. And with the well thought out architechture, I hardly experience any drop in performance, and if I do, I turn off FX rendering, for example.  I can easily find replacements for Publisher and Photo, though, also affordable, so Designer is definitely worth highlighting and expanding.

Agree with the above.
There was much user input about Select Same with great examples of comprehensive checkbox filter lists, suggested UIs, even fond reminiscence about 30 year old programs that got it right. And then we got a rather limited text menu. 
And sadly (as with a number of other half baked implementations) nothing has been changed since.

@Bit Arts Lovely points and it was nice to read these anecdotes. So much to think about in one post.


On the topic, I tend to work on high DPI illustrations that I sometimes translate to vector out of program... then export for laser cutters/assets for designers... and then output assets for websites. My images will tend to be very small scale... or rather large. I do also sometimes resize difficult images for a much smaller size and I will fill in/render the details back in by hand to fix any problem areas. I used to be able to do all of this in Photoshop, but have since learned with Affinity I need to do these touch ups in Clip Studio due to lack of a pressure-based opacity in the Brush tool. Edit: I point this out because I find that working both extremes of the scale can sometimes unearth different problems

Anyway, I also use tones and patterned texture a lot in my designs and when comparing both programs, the disparity in AA curves rather shows up pretty clearly when exporting the same curves at small sizes. An example I created:



Left: Illustrator     Right: Affinity

I post this example not to say whether I think one is worse or better. I post this to show that they are indeed a significant difference in terms of how AA/output is handled by both programs. I would say that Affinity's reads blurrier, as I've said before, because 1) it appears to utilize a linear AA "curve" which is effectively a subpixel black to transparent gradient that is more akin to "Outer Glow" or feathering and 2) thus the AA tends to be teeter out too fast compared to other implementations. Fonts that are not well hinted to begin with for screens at smaller point sizes or display type that has a lot of edge detail will be impacted the most. Of course it is distracting as well if we lay an image with heavy AA'ed type nearby a paragraph of text in a web browser rendered at high DPI... then the difference in quality will be much more apparent..

Other programs appear to apply a heavier weight to the edge details and this is perhaps because the AA/output curve is hand-tweaked by the designers of the program and thus gives a more "hinted" appearance (which increases clarity) on output, but also legibility for smaller points of type... the other thing to consider, how many fonts across the web were "tested" or even designed from within Adobe programs... therefore, their hinting algorithms/curves could be seen as something of a benchmark in some cases...

Perhaps this could be helped if Coverage Map were fixed and/or we had an option to control AA at a application setting/document level, or just having access to specialized AA for text... I care for this greatly, because for web, little details like this go a long way push an icon or a site's logo to the next level. Of course there is always SVG, but that is not always an option, especially if the text has artwork embedded within it...

Edit: Attached single samples:

Edit: clarity

Stay with Photoshop - you happy, we happy…
There are alot of features that goes first priority compair to support DDS/DXF, like Blend Tool, Spiral Tool, more AI-tools etc etc…

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. Then we can delete this chain since it was me not being educated on the proper color profile for the file formats I was using. Thank you all for your help.

had a look unter preferences>performance, but did not find any option.
best,
s
 

+1 to toggle export preview. Generating time is too long.
It would be best if it was turned off by default (especially in Publisher) because it is the user who should decide whether he needs to use it in a given situation.

Thank you, Debra.
I compare with everyone on principle, not feature by feature, but in general. Obviously Affinity is a smaller and younger product, but Serif is not. For an IT company, it's an old company with 35 years behind it, which should have resulted in maturity in a number of areas, but I often wonder aloud why this is not the case.
My comparison here with Adobe is methodical. Companies like Adobe, Microsoft and many other giants have the same problem, namely that everything they do right and wrong is something their competitors can learn from and catch up on. You can, if you're brazen, replicate functionality and workflows, but it takes more to learn and understand the methods behind product development. But again, you can enter the game later and benefit from the fact that others paid the main price of learning first.
For example, I have been in contact with fairly ordinary but professional photographers from the USA who had been in a network Adobe used during the development of Adobe Lightroom's later versions, and have had for a long time. Probably still do. Here they were involved for years in a feedback chain, and their feedback as professionals was assessed and quietly implemented where Adobe deemed it necessary. One of the players who occasionally interfered in the network directly was Thomas Knoll, one of the brothers who created Photoshop. We're talking about physical meetings here and real relationships. Not a digital forum. I guarantee that knowledge about workflows has gone straight into the heads of key decision makers at Adobe. I love that Knoll went from the top of the pyramid into the engine room.
Not some naive "please devs" from all sorts of people in a forum, and actually not devs as such, but professional customers and professional players in Adobe, who met together physically in physical premises with coffee and refreshments, and arrived at what they expected and importantly, what they needed first and foremost. Of course, this does not guarantee a product that makes everyone equally satisfied, including me, but I can really, really, really see in many elements of Adobe's products that the company has listened and understood by being in direct dialog with professionals. This is especially true for outout. And there is nothing more important than output.
Serif has historically marketed themselves presumptuously and thrown around the term professional, and they simply must be held accountable for their words. I think they should do just that by coming out of the bush and working more closely with real-life professional customers - and usability specialists - and develop professionally and methodically. I wouldn't be able to resist just out of curiosity and pride if I were them. And besides, it's infinitely more rewarding to work closely with professionals in real life than with random people in the digital isolated synthetic universe. And it pays back a thousandfold.
You strike me as a balanced debater and a true creative, which is highly appreciated from here.
May you have a creative and wonderful day. 🙂

Thank you, Debra.
I compare with everyone on principle, not feature by feature, but in general. Obviously Affinity is a smaller and younger product, but Serif is not. For an IT company, it's an old company with 35 years behind it, which should have resulted in maturity in a number of areas, but I often wonder aloud why this is not the case.
My comparison here with Adobe is methodical. Companies like Adobe, Microsoft and many other giants have the same problem, namely that everything they do right and wrong is something their competitors can learn from and catch up on. You can, if you're brazen, replicate functionality and workflows, but it takes more to learn and understand the methods behind product development. But again, you can enter the game later and benefit from the fact that others paid the main price of learning first.
For example, I have been in contact with fairly ordinary but professional photographers from the USA who had been in a network Adobe used during the development of Adobe Lightroom's later versions, and have had for a long time. Probably still do. Here they were involved for years in a feedback chain, and their feedback as professionals was assessed and quietly implemented where Adobe deemed it necessary. One of the players who occasionally interfered in the network directly was Thomas Knoll, one of the brothers who created Photoshop. We're talking about physical meetings here and real relationships. Not a digital forum. I guarantee that knowledge about workflows has gone straight into the heads of key decision makers at Adobe. I love that Knoll went from the top of the pyramid into the engine room.
Not some naive "please devs" from all sorts of people in a forum, and actually not devs as such, but professional customers and professional players in Adobe, who met together physically in physical premises with coffee and refreshments, and arrived at what they expected and importantly, what they needed first and foremost. Of course, this does not guarantee a product that makes everyone equally satisfied, including me, but I can really, really, really see in many elements of Adobe's products that the company has listened and understood by being in direct dialog with professionals. This is especially true for outout. And there is nothing more important than output.
Serif has historically marketed themselves presumptuously and thrown around the term professional, and they simply must be held accountable for their words. I think they should do just that by coming out of the bush and working more closely with real-life professional customers - and usability specialists - and develop professionally and methodically. I wouldn't be able to resist just out of curiosity and pride if I were them. And besides, it's infinitely more rewarding to work closely with professionals in real life than with random people in the digital isolated synthetic universe. And it pays back a thousandfold.
You strike me as a balanced debater and a true creative, which is highly appreciated from here.
May you have a creative and wonderful day. 🙂

Sometimes I wonder to myself if it's really "fair" to compare Affinity products to Adobe, especially for the price, but then at the same time they are advertising to professionals and trying to appeal to that market... I don't mind as much if some features are lacking. That's more according to the needs of each person and may or may not make the switch untenable. However, despite anything that is missing, the polish and export quality must be there to be considered even remotely "professional".

Things like incomplete support of certain file formats or output quality that is difficult to maintain across a variety of workflows makes that work subject to error and is the stuff of nerds and enthusiasts who like to have their hands full figuring things out (I'm partly in this category), but generally bad for those who are outputting large volumes of work daily and needing to work efficiently regardless of delivery method (to another professional, to a printer, to stock sites, etc...).

That isn't to say that the enthusiast market isn't important to capture. It obviously is and I think it's why Affinity is still even a thing after all this time. Anyway, I enjoy your posts on here and I learn a lot from you and others on this platform. Let's hope they see these messages in the right light and will take it on board...

I can tell you that in Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop, at least since 1995, I have seen clear evidence that fonts and scaling are adapted to customer needs and feedback from customers in terms of sharpness. The two applications clearly deliver sharper output with the right settings than Affinity - and the defaults and typical output of the standard algorithms. There are clearly extra layers of algorithms and Adobe configurations that provide very satisfactory results for mainstream of their customers.
That's not to say that razor sharpness is good - the most obvious sign of amateur photographers is the perpetual pursuit of maximum sharpness (spoiler: professional cameras are often set to lower sharpness than prosumer cameras). You don't want excessive default sharpness. But it's good to have the choice and not have to go through all sorts of mind-bending tricks to get better rendering output.
Regards from someone who post-processes ALL exported files from Affinity in Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. Out of necessity. 🙂
What I'm trying to say is that Adobe has an opinion on what sharpness and quality the output from their products should be able to deliver, which has resulted in customized algorithms and configurations of algorithms and features. Not just implementing the same algorithms as everyone else. 

Brrr, the ball is definitely in Serif's court now when it comes to solving the problem or pointing at issues within macOS. 

Another video example of the bug when moving an image and the footnote hugs the image instead of staying at the bottom of the page (and forces text to the next page).

footnote-flow-bug.mov    

I also don't see Affinity files in my recent folder at all, which should be filled with Affinity Designer entries. Documents and files from all my other programs appear there.
Please feel free to follow up on this, I have for months on the iPad wondered what I could and could not find in recent, and have instead opened my files the hard way directly from the folders.
Running latest macOS/iPadOS on recent hardware.

I am not seeing any .afdesign or .afphoto files in the macOS "Recents" folder, which is usually accessed in the Finder sidebar. Is this a bug?