SrPx

I like your work. :)

It is a clear sign of absolute overflow. I've been like that in some companies. Simply time must be lacking for everything. My advice, be patient... I for one prefer to have the beta ready, and go direct myself to my main critical points (is not like you probably would have same interest on every and all the bug fixes equally...) and check myself rather than having a more verbose communication, but betas delayed. And 200 fixes, man... That's a lot to make a list (even more if it involves some sort of internal checks among several people etc). I prefer that time put to developing or giving a break to the programmers...

I don't know Macs at such depth. But in Windows, in most applications (even Office ones, a great example is MS Excel or Access with huge files) RAM does optimize a lot your every day use (heck, even searching stuff with many tabs). And it has an extremely interesting aspect: Comparing to upgrading significantly your CPU, RAM is quite cheap (for Windows! PCs, (of course, same goes for a PC where you install Linux, obviously) ). Just ensuring is one of the good brands (Crucial, Kingston, Patriot, etc) Cheaper than any other upgrade. And 3D software (specially modern versions), for example, eats tons of RAM for breakfast (with a reason, handling millions of polygons, huge textures, very complex shaders, etc, etc).

Actually, I had read a very long test certain lab had made, to determine if PS indeed used many cores. Their conclusions were that 2 cores at most, and the best performance you could get was going for the higher clock, and a modern cpu. In an adobe thread, of those of like 14 pages, where i read how some professionals (in every sense. I consider myself one, but some of those really knew a lot of the internals) , not as old as 2013, although there were lots of opinions and experiences shared there, the clear conclusion, most convincing -and supported- points were that indeed, with PS makes even more sense having more RAM than a SSD, even while the latter is very good to have (if you are ok with those disks, specially as scratch disk! :s ). So, no surprises here, with tons of milestones flying around my head, bosses crazy pressure and all, I did know too well, with a very long list of PS versions how ram and a high clock processor does benefit PS performance, since always. Whenever I asked for a hardware update in my seat, always that it was RAM or CPU, my productivity would get the highest boost. Someone stated in that thread that it'd be indeed best to make a RAM disk -if anyone remembers about that- than having a SSD as a scratch disk (also due to the number of writes, is a crazy usage for a SSD, but some people don't care about having to replace it soon), but a bunch of people mentioned -with solid reasons/proofs- that this would indeed be worse, that is best to just have a good lot of RAM, let PS handle it (instead of blocking some memory to configure a RAM disk), more optimal than the other way. But a lot of people that I'd respect fully from their CVs and obvious tons of experience were agreeing there: PS key thing is RAM and CPU speed, not multi core. Sorry, I don't have these threads handy. I tend not to stick to conclusions read in a forum thread, but to me those were certainly solid, from quite experienced people (not the average pro). So, yep, you can then take this as an opinion only, as I don't have the links around... To be fair: PS, in every company and version, has always worked great for me. You could argue that I and others might be just too used to know where are the potential bottle necks, and that knowing how to avoid them even in crappy old machines does not make them good in performance. But hey, I believe we're entering a bit in the field of synthetic benchmarks, and too strict considerations, while it is real life cases, real scenarios what matters. Despite usually my typical boss having me working with some turtle machine, PS allowed always to do even crazily complex work. It produces no trembling while you draw for improving performance, has a great aliasing, allows to paint and work perfectly for virtually anything. (even so, have their strong critics from comic artists and the like, who much prefer the brush performance and stabilization options given by Clip Paint Studio and SAI. And in that department, I believe they are absolutely right, even in the recent versions. But the overall solution that PS is extremely hard to beat. ) So, I'd clarify just that from what I have read in several places, I'd be very inclined to believe as true that theory/tests that say that PS does not use really many cores except in the case of some filters, not so much the main tools. But IMO, this is very far from being important if the result is -which it is- is that PS is a royal wonder in good hands. (And so is/will be AP. When I have in my hands something not with this potential, the situation is immediately noticed) Also because there's a strong user base since eons of pros using Macs.I tell you I have done from 3D for commercial games for a large phone distributor, working 14 hours a day, using a very old Sempron (~ celeron in performance), and before that, around 2001, with an AMD athlon I got assigned, I do all sort of press work digital painting, 2D/3D work, etc. Not a single hardware failure or system going down in all that time (true that all there, we knew how to handle well Windows, install it well, etc). Of course, Windows people are not strangers to crashes, but in my experience, is more some poorly internal in even some of the high end packages (this what people complains so much in Affinity, was many times worse in PS and Max some years ago) I have done video editing, audio editing, 3D high detail (millions of polygons), illustrated large canvases (digital painting, very realistic) which is most of my activity now, rendering, mountains of corporate image work, design for print, but also for web, etc. And of course, tons of web designing and programming. All that with Windows PC machines. And indeed, VERY low end machines (semprons, celerons, core 2 duos, athlons.. the highest I ever could use in a company was an i5 ! Sad as it sounds). In small/mid size companies often the budget is low. And yeah, the bang for the buck, I can tell it keeps beating Macs, even today. A mac is a master piece of what hardware must be, I agree. But I prefer any day to configure my stuff as needed, even pick my own hardware pieces, and use my workarounds and pay half of the money every 5 years (not to fair to say so, as my machine is from 2008 and still kicking well). I can't deny Macs are very carefully made and crafted, but to me, a piece of hardware that "allows" me to do the work, and be productive, at a much nicer price (even if it were just a 20% cheaper !...but the more complex your setup, the higher the difference) , that's a winner for me. I have used Macs, and like them, a lot. But this theory of them being better, is incredibly subjective, specially with today's modern PC hardware. And there's more software variety, globally. And despite this, said it before, if I were swimming in gold I'd love to have 3 machines each with each of the main OSes. As there are advantages in the 3, and I like the (almost) error-free factor in macs. Yep. About the CPU usage (in Windows)... I have experienced that lowering the task's cpu priority (in task manager) a bit, in some cases, doesn't necessarily slow down an app when it is killing the whole performance (of the OS & app) if left untouched, it can end up finally working well ! . I believe this is because some modern applications can hog totally old machines' operative system and resources, but when you force it to give some fresh air to the cpu, it works like charm (in my experience, and only tested this in my i7, but was totally helpful/critical ) The only thing I'd agree about people thinking Windows can't be used to work seriously...(none here has said so, but I have read and heard this from Mac users, often) ... is that there is a specific Windows version with which I'd be more inclined to agree in this : Windows Vista. If the app you use for your work functions seamlessly even in low end machines, and allows to get the job done, I'd say a cheap machine is a winner, even more for companies needing to have a lot of seats. (or small ones that simply have very low budget) And the compatibility thing is important in fast environments. If a PC would be something you could buy and be up todate with the expected work to be done, over decades, then yep, I'd say, buy the best, like the old sewing machines (my family has one from the first years in the XXth century, works great). But is not the case, we are constantly upgrading, graphic production is always increasing its specs.

I can tell you, I dunno in Macs, but in a Windows machine, working in anything serious for graphics, 8 GB is short, especially with large and complex files. I know this too well :s I agree about SSDs. I like their speed, but I am not that sold on reliability, for a bunch of articles I have read, and even while I know that from a practical point of view, it "could" happen that I'd change my machine before the number of writes would end... Could be not, too. As an average is fine to say that if you write the crazy huge lot of memory that I do write a day, in 5 or as much 7 years, the SSD would start to fail on me and finally stop working. I know the 2 petabytes article and all, but more or less even that extreme test's conclusion was that a SSD, used as work disk (not only for system files) in an usage like mine, it'd last that, 5 to 7 years. My actual disk, an HD at 7200 rpm, is now 9 years old, and its terabyte is still working great. I store lots of info, and all my disks better last a lot, as even when I change computer and disk, keep the HD out as if it were an external disk more. Having need of so much storage, I look a lot the price per GB, too. But mostly, if have your machine configured in certain way, and know how to handle stuff, the writes to disk are so minimal (I mean while working, not in export time, or saving/moving files, etc) that wont be noticed. At some points are unavoidable, but have learnt to calculate those and multitask meanwhile, so to not loose time . Plus I very well know my worst time issues are caused by CPU and GPU. (specially high end, high resolution 3D renders, where the cores or GPU, and of course, always ram or video ram, is all that matters) So, I guess is too a matter of how you use your computer. I do a bit of everything: video edit, 3D, 2D edit, digital painting. In this case you'd better have a bit of good in certain main elements, a balanced system (if disk were a very serious concern, I already would have a ssd. But is not). As mentioned, for pure serious video editing, I'd go for a very different machine. (an i7 5820k with at least a 1060 card (for gpu video rendering), probably, and yep, lots of RAM. Surely a SSD despite all mentioned above, just because video edit can be so disk intensive, and would be forced to assume to purchase a new disk after 3 to 5 years (using it for work files, not just for the OS). My normal OS usage (regular non work tasks) is snappy, btw, having an old machine and an HD. So no point in the ssd upgrade, for me... )

For my usual illustration & design work, for now a sweet spot is 16GB RAM, an i7, and average (but modern) graphic card. Other components don't affect importantly my performance. One can go into detail to huge depths there, but merely that's what I need to work well with my usual optimizations. Of course, the more the merrier, if a family member one day (when cows will fly) give me as a present an intel octa core with 64 GB ram and a gtx 1080, I'll be a happy camper. For some one doing this type of work, I see for these days a nice fit the mentioned above. And as a rule, max performance at a minimum cost. And this is not just a hobby... I was for years in a company with an i5 with 4gb. Often making large print files. That was simply horrid (web work was fine). You can, indeed, do the stuff, with some crazy tricks, but is a royal slow down, and a very limiting problem. Just like having an i7 is better than an i5, because even if your focus is your 2D application, you will find your self, in pro workflows -and hobbyist, too- opening as mentioned above, other packages, tools, things being made in the background, even just consider the system tasks (I keep those at a minimum, but there are some you can't avoid) . All that uses cpu, you are multitasking even using only one app, and multi tasking is helped largely with more cores. I mean, not only RAM. But as mentioned, doing illustration and general graphics, with many layers (among quite some other reasons, working wit many layers is a total savior with clients wanting many changes) and usual work flow with a client, that base I mentioned seems to be a nice fit, in my experience. I'm right now with 8GB in RAM, and have been able to check how ram usage is a bottle neck here. Of course, depends on your type of work, or even your habits while working.

What I tend to use are files smaller in size (ie, 3k to 7k (as much) wide, in typical formats for printing) but a lot of layers . Like 50 to 100 layers, in some case, more. Although in a lot of cases wont need more than 30 or so. Even while in the end I might finish the work reducing all to 2 or 3 layers. In every machine and software I have tried, my work with 8gbs is very in the limit with those files, of course, a slow cpu comes to make things worse. I can work with them knowing some tricks, but If I have a distraction I can end up with a problem (so, usually I don't have any, but I know it is in the edge) Of course, I am not talking about performance enough for editing, but performance enough for smooth painting :) (I mean, the demand is higher)

Are you sure? In any 2D package on earth were I have needed to work in a large number of layers, raster illustration in print resolution and for a medium/big print size, RAM is a such a need in the range of 16 GB and up. I haven't though tested very heavy files with AP yet. PS for example doesn't benefit much from multi core, all what counts is core speed and ram. I know, surely very different code internals. I'm heading for a new machine myself, am heading surely to finally making the switch to Windows 10 (is just too time consuming all the color calibrating stuff, software, etc, to get tuned perfect for my pro work, so am delaying all what I can , lol. Even while I know in 10 will perform better) and heading -after a very deep and long research- for a kabylake i7 7700K (I do a lot of 3D, and some video, too) , 16GB (or 32, will depend on money) RAM, not the fastest one, but kindda in the middle-high, try it to be low latency, then a GTX 1060, 6gb (handy for fast Cycles renders of certain kind, need the GBs for rendering at least not too small scenes) , and surely not a shadow of a SSD disk. Might be the only one in the whole internet willing to skip this technology until the next one. So, that'd be a good old HD, seagate barracuda 7200 rpm have worked always great for me. I know how to minimize a lot HD memory swap being overused (a lot of RAM is one). And prefer these disks for long thought reasons. Monitor stays, is a jewel.. :D. I'm not purchasing a machine to adapt to AP and AD, but one to be an overall boost with most applications. Now, might wait to see if I can find a good offer... Anyway, it seems AP and AD perform well now with my old i7, so, I'd expect with that new machine, quite well. The ten cores option, the other platform... though being a full time freelancer, the price/performance ratio _with what I use_ (if I were working in high end video editing most of the time, it'd make a lot of sense) does not make sense... the mother board is unavoidably quite more expensive, you cannot do the thing of purchase a base machine first, let the integrated cpu graphic card (in theory capable of 4k video with the 7700k) work for a while, and some months later get a dedicated card (so, more money in one single time) , and actually the technology is newer in Kaby. Not that this means any strong advantage, but there are things that have some edges. Plus, in what I use, benchmarks in a bunch of places seem very revealing... And also, the processors of the E platform are very pricey.

Apart from that being slightly rude, I can't agree with it. is their product, and they can take whatever the direction they want. We are not the owners of their code or the company at a whole. Plus "we the users" and "most users" is too much to state, IMHO. As even if there were in this thread around 20 users all agreeing together in a certain point of view about a specific feature, that'd be a super funny-ridiculously small sample of the total users, as a statistic, don't you think ? To establish that it is what the many thousands of users of an application do actually want, or even will/would want. Neither necessarily for a type of user, or the ones with a certain take about an specific feature. They choose which their user target is going to be. It's their call. And even if there was an actual poll among some thousands of users, technically well made, reliable, which is certainly not easy to do accurately even by the best professionals -in politics we have seen this in every country- they would still have their totally entire right to take the risk and do their bet, against those poll results.... They can perfectly take the risk on doing it their way (and IMO, should). "we" here are the ones who don't have a say, in the sense that they would "have" to take that direction, yes or yes, lol. They are gentle and am sure they consider most of the polite and educated opinions (but just to maybe give it a thought, if time allows), but is not their "duty".

I'd be merely interested in getting first the thing right, with stabilization tools for actually drawing with precision and everything (and/or a brush engine revamp)..You can fake hand drawn effects in many ways (ie, with the daub brushes) . I mean, your second suggestion is nice, but imo, should not remove a second of development to the first matter you mention, as the other stuff can be really built up easily or use some excellent brushes made by certain user here. (I know the feature you mention is more advanced, though. But IMO, for art (traditional look or not) much less important than the other matter. )

Like for knowing crazily geeky facts. :D

Oh, and instead copy & paste, save the image from the web (ie, if the file is a JPG, etc) , using right click, "save image as" (just remember no matter how you do it (copy & paste or save the file) there usually are copyright considerations ! Even if you don't find a copyright notice at all.) . And if want to publish one file made by you on the web, well, be sure is with the desired color profile embedded correctly and everything, and check with Firefox with those settings activated, or any other browser which you could configure so, just to check the thing. A tiny note: PNG -as far as I know, not sure if there was certain complex possibility, tho- wont support carrying a color profile, but JPG can do that. just remember JPG is not lossless, introduce compression visual artifacts. As wont be for editing the image more, if just fine always that you provide a very low compression file, high quality setting. (beware the file size, too ! no one likes to wait a lot, tho will depend on your target visitors type of connections. ) I don't know if it is up-to-date, but would be sth in the line of this : http://ntown.at/2013/12/28/firefox-color-management/ This is probably more up to date, and also, contains info about other browsers : http://www.color-management-guide.com/web-browser-color-management.html There is even a Firefox addon, an extension to make it super easy to activate or deactivate it, if you don't want to get too techy. But I haven't tested, have no notion about it : https://addons.mozilla.org/en-Us/firefox/addon/color-management/

At least in firefox, in advanced settings, you can force it to use color management... And it does work as expected, properly. (IE, and Adobe RGB 1998 file will display correctly, etc) But I believe is not ON by default. Is a pair of settings or 3 that will have to be activated, if I remember well, Guides about it are easy to find in google.

I have quite a strong suspect that the reason why there's not too much high end graphic software in Linux is more due to a large base of Linux developers being since day one more concerned about programming/network/administration/system/social/security related tools. That together with facts like... Doing graphic software is a daunting task, which involves a lot of issues, hardware drivers and hardware support (one of the probs in the old times in Linux), and that a lot of proprietary, non-free stuff (libraries, etc) is needed, in many cases, to create those. Is not just that simple as the chicken/egg analogy. If anything, there's a very hard to beat issue, and is market dominance, something that is an issue for any software, even based in Windows. So, is more of a established brand (Adobe and Autodesk, mostly) and a bazillion work-flows and companies working with the dominant suites totally forming part of the companies' DNA, now. Even if Affinity (for example), or Corel, or Xara, were to beat them with a BETTER (and surely cheaper) product, which is such a task, most companies could not -for a while- trash Adobe suite. Just like other companies have a very complex situation if have to move from using Maya, because all their internal work is based on Maya's Mel Scripting, plugins (some even made in-house) hard worked out through many years, shaders, etc. This happens with PS, AI, and some other graphic software applications. Is not impossible, and some houses are making it. But the mass... convincing them all to do so... pretty complex. So much that even if expecting the best case scenario, that this 2% of the global OSes market share would have their users all buying Affinity tools (as if everyone in the Linux world were artists... Not the case...) that'd mean nothing to change the situation : That the main suites will keep dominating with a 91% (or whatever the real number is...) and a 7% (or more, and happy design software customers) as a much better chance that the small other user base. The main brands will be there in the top no matter what (Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft, Apple...) . Of course, people like you and me (or specially me, as I believe you are not a freelance, or not full time at that) can have the joy of using any other thing but those. But the majority, with their jobs, already extremely hard 12 - 16 hours day job (working in the graphic industry tends to be really hard by itself, (games, marketing, comic, sofware companies, been there, done that ) ) as to had extra obstacles. A freelance still can have flexibility in the software to use, milestones, and procedures. The one at high stress environments, can't add extra problems. While a freelance will do in more cases if saves money and time in the long run. (does not need the boss permission) That last reason, is IMO, the VERY, very first one. Specially when working in games, webmaster, and in certain software developer, you really really don't wont extra time loosing, stop your crazy schedules because the whatever app lacks a feature and you need to "wait" till some open source developer gets in the mood of adding it, uses it as as a Google Summer project, or thesis, etc. Even so, I insist. There IS already graphic software there in Linux with this "ok let's seriusly attend the professional requirements and do real professional competing software" focus. IMO Blender is by far the very best example, by all means. A lot of people don't know it because its UI is to different to what people know, and this keeps them far (for now.The UI has become much better...). But is indeed really powerful. Krita, for 2D painting, if you use that one seriously, you find your self with a very professional painting solution. Of course, is still too young (like Affinity) , and has corners to polish. But if I am using it professionally, it is then indeed quite there already, as I'm of the picky kind, very demanding with my tools. And one thing that is key is that the actual Linux users would learn to give the value that it has to their great existing applications. A lot of people complaining to Adobe for not making a Linux version, I've talked to many, and most of them confess that they have been unable to make Gimp, Krita, and MyPaint their base tools (90% of them have their brain installed, just didn't care to pass the first difficulty with the tool), or even do anything with them. A power user should be able to make complete use of them. Even to achieve things not possible by default, just doing clever workarounds. So, can't agree that is just : "There is no graphic designers" (I'd expand it to graphic tools users, as the field is huge (designers, game artists, illustrators, comic artists, etc)) "because there's not enough good graphic software in Linux" (I know these are not your exact words, but I got what you meant). The situation is way more complex, has more corners, is not that simple, neither has such a simple solution. Among all the issues I see, I emphasize the fact that for very long -I've been a Blender user in a more serious way since 2002, but have used Linux distributions since the floppy discs times- Linux community has not cared about graphic software like Windows users always did, and definitely, totally very far from the love put by all Mac community (users and developers), an OS so much inspired by graphic design. This is a huge factor. Not irrelevant, I can say ! The thing is... Well, I am not an UX expert, but yep an old timer in graphic and UI design. I certainly can use a combination of Gimp, Inkscape and Krita to do virtually whatever (and Scribus , for certain projects). I don't know if your need of multiple art boards is a show stopper or you could do well with a workaround, as the part of your job I don't know (and probably ever wont, as IMO is too far from doing pure graphics, which I prefer) is the UX. I know this new category needs new tools and application support. I only know I have handled to do crazily complex projects with just combining open source. In the past was really hard, but doable. Today it is quite easier. So, is one thing that saddens me a bit to read. Now that we finally -graphic artists, in general- are getting more attention from Linux community at a whole, as they clearly are finally interested, now that tools like Inkscape and Gimp are growing faster, and Blender is such a serious tool that i don't get (well, I do...) how don't a bunch of mid/small studios don't start integrating it with a plan of replacing commercial tools in many seats. Just in this exciting moment, I read people saying there is no professional graphic software in Linux ! Is not on par, not equally powerful, but totally professional. Not being equally "featured" (different from being good) this should mostly affect only big companies, not individual professionals, (even less to enthusiast hobbyists). I really hope there's a bunch of other artists (well, I know there are, seen renders and models that equal or surpass the quality of many at CG Talk done with the big apps) like me, that are aware of the true capability of Linux (cross-platform, like all those I did mention here) graphic software. That said, I do know Affinity tools are more "professional compliant" (if that's a thing, lol) in how they address professional requirements more directly, out of the box, requiring no workarounds, and how their UIs do adapt almost seamlessly to the pro UIs of the top dogs. Again, this is critical for big companies. shouldn't be a factor for small studios and independent professionals. (for which IMO, the very best shot by very far, is having ALL these tools installed: Affinity's, Krita, Blender, Gimp, Inskcape. And so you have way less chances to be left alone in the rain in certain project obstacle. )

Provided you are not getting trojans, those "ads" (maybe you mean widgets? You get a lot more on your smartphone...) are so easy to remove and never see them again that a little kid could do so. A... professional, way more easily, of course. Windows 7 here, and installed per request Windows 8.x/10 (and all previous versions of Windows) to a bunch of friends and family members' computers. None of them ended with ads of any kind. A professional must care as well about configuring correctly (Linux requires a lot more effort for that, as a system. Gives more control too, of course.) the machine's OS, plus it can never be a OS preference, a taste, to establish a solid criteria for your graphic software choice. That can never be considered professional. (the only case would be that your current work flow is dependent on an OS, but that can be Linux, Windows, Mac OS...) You might be getting confused with the privacy options. Once minimally configured (disabling Cortana, etc, etc, there are many guides on inet), all what it does is a bit of anonymous telemetry which does not affect you or your work at all. You are loosing a lot more privacy in your phone, Google, Gmail, or even in your bank, and people protesting so much about Win 10, don't even start to realize this... The support for Win 7 ends, but like always, it does not mean it stops working. You will be able to work in an isolated machine doing your graphic work with Windows 7 and latest version working over it after that time. Not a nonsense. Seen that being done in companies and getting files and info by USB or simple local network. Also done so to family members PCs. The more and more people for now is barely above a 2% of the installed user base, in comparison, a 91% of Windows machines, and a ~ 7% of Macs ( I got surprised by this very number, but remember how is a customer user base that has no probs in spending money in technology and software, quite more than the other two...) This was said with Win 10 launch and the wave of protests on inet... It never happened, MS has come with quite good results with Windows 10 in every sense, and people have adopted it, just like always, if not even more.... :D . Windows 10 AND windows 8.1 , I have tested this, make a very significant improvement in hardware performance. I have seen how comparing clean installs, Windows 8.1 and 10 allow OLD machines that were just barely usable to come to a new life of speed. So... By professional experience, I can very firmly state that Windows 8.1 and 10 are in one of the key matters (performance) much better than Windows 7. And to me, an improvement in speed, with milestones flying at speed of light, is gonna be always really welcome.

Have said it before (even in this thread, but people keep asking things already asked in it, a thread that has some kilometers long, by now (due to the fact that the freedom of speech in this forum is the highest I have seen to date in any place)...), but is never a bad thing to remind people, in general, as IMO is a positive reminder, and kind of a personal testimony about the matter. There IS professional graphic software in Linux, already. I wont get tired of mentioning it. Maybe the term "professional" is very arguable and dependent on point of views. If one considers professional, a software that could with very minimal obstacles, integrate in a high end team/company (that even has a set of Photoshop Actions (like macros) on which they depend critically, for example), mainstream production which requires very specific features, that'd leave in bad position the software I am referring to, now, and even in that case, some people loving their Linux-cross platform (I use those apps in my Windows-only, lately) get the -very hard and considerable, trust me, is a fight the resistance to that in companies- hit of having to use workarounds to be on par with other workers using more complete software in Windows/Mac machines, in those companies or areas where they give u freedom (I know as I did so, in both Win and Linux) . These cases, we were and are a minority, so IMO not valid as a general solution. So, in this understanding of the professional term, nope, Linux software is not yet there... Although... In many usages and niches, I'd say Blender has got there, already. In certain number areas, at least, and always that the company or studio (a significant number of video editing small studios counts already with Blender as the only tool for 3D) counts, or can contract, or is ready to get Blender experts. For me, that is simply a type of professional, not the only one ! I have worked like that in certain number of companies, using both high end commercial and open source. Right now am a freelancer, independent, and I do professional work (otherwise no one would want my production) . People working so, professional artists, designers, etc, when the commission is not integrated in certain production chains -and even so, if flying solo in your side, you can adapt to that in most cases- are, indeed, professional workers. Blender -is doing for me right now, LOL !!- already allows this, brilliantly, indeed. Ok, is 3D not 2D, but you simply said "graphic software". As matter of fact, I use also professionally Krita ( a pair of very recent commissions, indeed) for all my painting works. Gimp is extremely powerful at this time. Just the UI is certainly not for everyone (I don't have a problem, but that's me) . And in that very case, I would agree, for the printing world there are issues (but krita can handle most of that matter). Affinity Photo is eons above it in terms of CMYK handling, color managing, etc. And this is just because during years, the focus has not been in that area in apps like Gimp and Inkscape (I believe mostly as a natural aversion to propietary stuff, like Pantones, color libraries, etc, or just developers were not too personally related to those production worlds, and care a bit less). Which is in any case their developers call, by the way, not criticizing it in any way! But then, a bunch of professionals wont use it. (web/screen-only people can use it almost like a Photoshop (very different UI, tho) in Linux, so I have a hard time as well not to consider it professional, for certain uses and market niches. And this IS professional. VRAY is not a general package for modeling, is not a do-it-all, but does one thing amazingly: Rendering. So, is used professionally, even dominating the market in a good number of areas, while is a commercial package. The range of the scope does not necessarily imply being more or less professional, not in all cases. ) . Krita is a total dream come true for painting, supports decently PSDs -a native format is a native format, no one but Adobe can support it fully, and they can change that as they'd wish, reason why I love TIFFs...- and even support CMYK mode, in screen, able to paint in CMYK, unlike (till the last version I used, have installed a slightly old one) Gimp, where you cannot do that. Inkscape : I have used it, and still do, professionally. It's tracer is great, as is an integration of Potrace, which is amazing (sth u require rarely, but when u do, works great). It is VERY intuitive, WAY easier to learn than illustrator (but quite less featured, although with some things surprisingly better, but overall, Illustrator keeps being quite more powerful in high end, professional stuff), it has one of the best inking tools and brushes behavior for drawing that I have seen, but does neither handle the CMYK (although there's a start of attention and development put in that) in work mode properly, neither color managing as it should, for print environments, but it looks definitely promising, like all the apps I'm mentioning. In that matter, the so considered best applications, the top ones, have their issues, too! . And Affinity's, in the typical number of years that a suite takes to consolidate, even with larger resources -so bigger and more powerful that the comparison is even funny- is really really young, it is still polishing the applications, as they got born "yesterday", so to speak. But I did so with Blender, let it grow and evolve as I kept in contact, learning and integrating it in my workflows progressively, so that at some point be free of larger monopolies in software, or at least in a %. Happily can say that today I don't need Max or Maya, for anything (in my 3D activities, that is. But I'm not a hobbyist). I still use other helper addons, and that's not wrong, as is usual in any high end work flow tools. But for very specialized areas (sculpting, normal maps. But you can do so already inside Blender, too.) IMO, you have a much better shot at getting some manuals, a lot of patience, and replicate workflows you do with PS or other commercial mainstream package, with these apps. See what you can and cannot do, and research new work flows to compensate the lack of certain features. You would have to, if working at a company, if you were forced to fill a seat with no Maya installed, and needed to supply with a Max what Maya offers in animation, for certain usages (opposite situation can be found, even also in animation...). And I understand the Linux philosophy, and even I like it, as a dream and all, and dreams become reality when you work in them, at least to an extent, I agree. But I'm telling you: Would do no harm to you to have a multi-boot, or, much better, a second machine -this is crazily convenient for a freelancer like me, even if only for rendering while I work!- with a Windows installed, and so have ALL graphic apps, free or not, available for your graphic work (my wet dream is to have a Mac, Linux and Win machine in my work room again..). If you are serious about doing graphics, that is. I see a bit not the cleverest to restrict your self to the usage of Linux-only for sth as complex as graphic production (competition and the level of things required today by the market and professional world is crazy), just because you feel more at home with another OS. A PNG, TIFF, OBJ, LWO, Collada, fbx, PDF, even a PSD, can be transferred from a WIn, to a Mac, Linux, iOS, etc, even in any direction. That's what matters. Once you are in your graphical app, there's no substantial difference if the UI looks a bit more like Apple icons, Windows ones, or KDE / Gnome or whatever. Is more about if you can handle layers, convert to a specific CMYK profile required by the printing company, and do a professional PDF export, etc, etc, etc. You forget the OS, there, if you are doing serious graphic work.

Very nice talk about a technical aspect of it -just the less important one, comparing with a lot other matters when porting to another platform, just the installer...- Where and how does this address the problems that have been continuously reminded in this thread for eons, now? I mean, the problem is not technical, is in the economics of the matter. Where does the fact that one can in theory port to whatever the platform address the problem that consist in this not being enough to support economically the effort, by any means? Specially prolonged in time, which people would expect from them after a first Linux version. The issue of the 2% (and something) in front of the 91% of user base in Windows... How it is addressed by just the installing matter (while even in a technical pov that's not the big issue: Performance, drivers, compatible libraries or graphic stuff, etc, etc, in the main core code is, not the actual packaging system ! :o ) At least, some others have mentioned Kickstarter. And while for a such task and full re-structuring of a whole company demands way more than the eventual help of just a Kickstarter campaign (to the point that suggesting it is kind of a joke), and it is not a safe bet by any means -and with the increased competition these days, and I know what am talking about at KS, even worse as a reason- , that still was an intent to offer a solution for the problem. No one would offend you - scratches my brain that you fear something like that- but is a bit of an insult to their intelligence to not expect that the less critical technical aspects would be very well handled by the developers, and that the actual install thing, with the many options for that today, it'd be rarely any of the main huge issues. And is very epic (some Churchill sentence (or one attributed to him) would have been even better) to suggest them to take the risk.. That has been something always very easy to do.... Edit: Sorry, posted while the latest post was being posted by Patrick, I didn't realize...

BTW, having the technology to print detailed logos... First, despite all what has evolved, still some media has very strong physical limitations, yet today. Also, is often more about a relation of cost/technology. if you can do design that will work in cheapo circumstances, you will get the work done in an effective way for the company. An exaggerated example: Your work quality can only be fully appreciated if printed by an very expensive hexachrome printer... or, less in the worlds of fantasy, just if you deny to do any gig that wont count on regular CMYK based offset printer... You would miss a lot of work, might better off adapting to the limits and losses produced in digital printing, these pod companies and etc, just like we all adapted from our high end illustrations to make pixel art for games in the 90s, or 256 colors gifs for the web, etc.... If you want to make your ópera prima, a very specific personal project, then these considerations shouldn't affect at all, but is about two very different situations...

If you are capable to know what design tendencies will be like in next years, you get my full admiration! It changes a lot, constantly, and not very easy to predict. But... In general simplicity (plain quads or in any other form/expression of it) in design is not new. The Bauhaus (art school which very heavily influenced design then and in many years later, and a lot of now can't be explained without it) is from 1919, and its revolution was indeed the focus on the function over decoration, and thus, simplicity was key in many ways. With that influence, minimalism and simplicity has been a mantra in design in many ways through all 20th century, and it is yet now. Consider that more organic and detail loving styles part of a certain nostalgy movement was still very present, the Art Noveau (from the ending of XIX century, and first years of the XX). So... I'd say indeed the last focus back on simplicity is way more "design", in the 20th century concept of it (which one can like or not) than other tendencies. If you remember, or were in the sad moment of the web 2.0, when everyone and his/her dog wanted their logo, website, and even business card be "2.0" I've seen my self (because I like to eat, and dislike having a constant fight with my boss back then, specially during the morning coffee time) doing more Apple-like (by the time!) reflections, subtle freaking soft shadows (so problematic for print, large posters, etc), and freaking rounded fonts, to just name a few. Even certain "3d like" but very slight touch in some elements, the freaking disgrace of the very overused stars with a twisted font insde, the overuse of pastel palettes... Absolutely another demonstration that an artist's, a graphic designer's criteria counted close to nothing inside many companies, unless the designer had an established name and/or a very solid network. Windows 8 came, and a lot of strength in that flat-only tendency, big quads, flat-everything style, and a minimalism, but playing a lot with spaces. (this had been also in 2.0, and is indeed a norm in design. Is not like they are inventing anything amazingly new, with all these "trends", lol.... ) So, I don't see it that way: Design has always, at least since that bauhaus movement where it became more about something to serve the function rather than the embellishment, and a more detailed aesthetics, more about simplicity, reduction, impact, usability, and most of all, synthesis (I don't know if the word is like in my language, now that i stop to think... I mean, the focus on doing a summary, and schema, a certain economy in your language to bring a stronger message without excessive elements). The "horror vacui", the fear to leave empty spaces, that a lot of bosses never understood, that space is an element in design, too, has always been fighting with actual design... is an old fight. That said... I'm probably more like you, more of an illustrator. Heck, I'm a detail lover, a realistic painter, also in my cartoonist branch I prefer the detailed route... But IMO, is good to recognize that there are some disciplines that have its different circumstances and characteristics. When I -had to- started working in design, many years ago, I repeatedly heard -sometimes at my face as an insult- how illustrators, we should stay out of the designers' business (the old accusation of meddling, intrusismo laboral in my language..)... That "Leonardos" were frowned upon... And I believed I was indeed acting wrong ! Until I saw too many of those doing really bad design, and not following certain minimum rules or making the necessary effort... While IMO, everyone should care about own's work quality and creations, not so much in what the neighbour is making... Design changes every month... or week... Is very difficult to know what would bring next years... (within a year range, yeah, maybe easier, but...) And even so, IMHO, nobody is forced to follow absolutely anything unless you work like I worked, as a grunt in a company. Then if your boss tells you it must be that blue, and not this other one, or wants "the logo bigger" , you gotta do so. At least in my area. If in yours there's an unemployment lower than 30%, great for you ! :D :D And BTW, what a boosting thrust for freelancing activity, this type of bosses, hehe. I mean, you can definitely do detailed logos, you can still think them very carefully, and do great logos, even resulting very functional and in the way a logo needs to be, even if you make them detailed... TILL some point. Overly detailed design tends to have practical issues, in the many applications and media it is required to work at. Yet so, you can always find a niche in some very specific cases were still a detailed logo more in the line of realistic art, has its place.

EDIT : But hey, am on Windows, though most of them seem to be cross platform. Nope, not that I noticed, and I tend to be careful. Neither even one of those antivirus or whatever pre-selected, for that I always pick custom install.. With Natron, I installed it iwith 'legacy' marked, as my GTX is even older than the 6xx series (2xx). So, I expect it to run slow, in my arcane machine. Anyway, as FX are going to mostly be done in Blender, not very worried... Of course it'll do 2D rendering slower, as no GPU render, only cpu, and I don't have a 10 core, but hey... (just core i7 1st gen) Anyway, that (low budget) video project -not sure if I got the commission- would take a while yet to begin, but yep, I'll tell you what I might find out, as a "first time user" of those (having basic/average knowledge in a bunch of other editors). In a first glance, the more familiar to me seems Hitfilm, then Fusion, and less, the node based one Natron. (but am used to the nodes concept due to Blender and XSI...) But from a very fast glance, that'd be too much to say...

Actually....Downloaded also Natron and Fusion 8, and installed them as well... Gonna be doing a small video project soon, so, you never know... There's so many options, that can't see the need of an affinity application. (and competing in a more pro way seems crazy, to me, with these tools available, Nuke, etc.)

Just reading your post, installed it... Looks really nice... Plus I don't need a lot of effects in Pro, as I can create them in Blender...(smoke, fire, physics in general, etc) . Indeed , could just use Blender video editor, but is a Blender Area I haven't got too deep into, as at the job used Sony Vegas -and at previous companies, Premiere- , and I'm pleased to say that in a first glance it has a very standard video editing UI (I'm guessing will be piece of cake to learn it...) I mean, wherever they put the limit to pro, I'd just resort to doing that with Blender, as am no video editing professional, is just for web or game videos (not AAA games...)

In this post, I explained how it happens way less when you draw in a non practicable fast speed. I mean, I have seen fast inkers, but never at the speed needed to produce that nose curve profile I show in there, I mean, for doing it without the issues (or almost). Also, a very interesting contribution in that same thread, of a Mac user (the creator of the daub brushes). Seems the issue is more pronounced on Windows. IMO, one can't blame Wacom on this, as every 2D package (vector or raster) I own or have as open source does not have this behavior and issues. Is something specific to AD. (like the issues in AP brush engine). As mentioned, even having purchased AD -and planning AP depending on 1.6 brush features/fixes- , am not really worried about when it will be solved and fixed, neither how. Just adding info here.

Yes, in Pixel mode does not happen, in AD. So, in that module, seems it is doing it right, is that smoothing of the vector once you release. This does not happen in Illustrator or Flash (or Krita and Manga Studio in vector mode), besides in those you can tune up the smoothing in several values (in general in averaging, I don't use same settings for different type of projects (cartoon, line art realistic, etc)). Anyway, probably this all could come solved with 1.6 versions' smoothing... I documented the issue, helping/intervening in a thread another artist started about the matter. She agreed with me on this. Here is the post : https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/29078-wobbly-linework-cintiq-24hd/?p=145035 A bit down below I posted a video demonstrating the problem, but sadly filedropper seems to delete old files... And can't find it now. It showed the issue perfectly. An image though that explained it quite well, I still keep that one : Only mentioning this to add some (IMHO) important context. Not worried on when or how it is addressed. ;) But I believe this and some other thread I posted gave certain info that can be useful once going over the problem.

hehe, that was a bit evil. A lot of them use Linux as a philosophy (I've done so)... And lately, many are paying quite more than the cost of all the serif products put together in the form of donating to several projects. Also they often purchase documentation, as is one of the most known ways -besides extra services and some other stuff- to support open source, other than direct donation. They'd pay for it, the few that they are. As the prob is the general stats, 2% or so...And what an investor has to say about it.