debraspicher

It's hard for others to see it this way once a feature becomes a part of their toolbox. There's many features in a program that I very rarely touch, but when I find a situation where that feature fits a particular use-case or my particular design strategy (or just saving time), it becomes "indispensable". It's possible to break up these elements into boxes and arrange using a grid, but if there's a lot of that going on in a typography heavy design as an example, then it can be time-consuming if any of these elements need to be "updated" and text altered. Another example, UI/web-design which is another direction Designer seems to be leading towards. Those are "text-heavy" as well, but they're not "documents". As it were, we don't have many features (yet) for "reshaping" type anyway beyond the simple basics, so it's likely when they move forward, we will see something like column-based options updated as well I think. That's my hope anyway.

I think Designer (currently) is being specialized more for graphical works than even Illustrator. In college we would make basic (generally graphic) fliers, text-heavy collages and "artsy" stationary in Illustration. In-Design would've been vastly overpowered as the features were largely unnecessary as it was just simple text-formatting for the purposes of "display", not legibility/consumption. If you need a "graphical" reason to include this feature though, there is a certainly a utilitarian use for artists as far as putting texts in columns. Just look at many typographical projects: https://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=typographical&rs=typed&term_meta[]=typographical|typed

Is this normal? Rotating image buttons rotates within the container, but doesn't rotate the container itself.

Same here. Just to report.

It's probably better to maintain precision in the file until it's exported. For a vector->pixel-art-based approach, pixel-level precision would be better and maybe add a setting to maintain whole pixels (which already exists btw)... but for a photo, it seems fine to keep this as the default until export.

A solid painting engine is utterly pivotal to retouching. I agree with @SrPx on that point. That said, I don't think people providing their own perspective on what should be considered "core" features for AP is them trolling or attempting to re litigating a feature request. Maybe a little off-topic. I've had my own feature requests poo-poo-ed I think and it is what it is. I don't really care. These other features are nice, but I do agree with Photo being 1.x and the brush engine still being rough around the edges, there are higher priorities, but it doesn't mean they can't expand the painting side later on. I wouldn't be surprised if they do add something similar down the line, but it may come to fruition in the form of Affinity's vision, not necessarily exactly as we suggest. They may yet surprise us. We already have concept of Personas, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a Painting Persona down the line.

Love his YT channel. The oil painting effect is useful for retouching things like wafts of hair. Some filters are just useless, but oil/smoothing filters have practical use.

Check Event Viewer. Will be under Windows Logs > System. You can search it or it is in Administrative Tools in Control Panel (under View by Icon, not Category).

A small request. This option exists in Photoshop, but could also be enabled in settings to be automatic. Basically, it set it so that when you are zooming in and out, the document window auto-resizes to the current image size. I wouldn't mind either if it were just a shortcut key I had to hit to do the auto-resize. Unless there is another way to achieve this with just shortcuts? That would be awesome.

Lose the attitude. It isn't generally expected a workaround would be found. We asked about your system so that additional information could be given so that it can be fixed by developers. If you don't expect a response, then don't post in a BETA forum. No enthusiasm intended.

I checked the same preset and mine has the "FHD 1080p" profile set to default as sRGB. I don't even have a "Wide Gamut" profile in the color profile list, but I do see my current monitor profiles. Is HDR or 10-bit/etc enabled on your system? One of my displays is set at 10-bit (but not HDR). I'm not sure why else the "Wide Gamut" option would be coming up for you as a default. That is odd. The other thing I noticed is it is defaulting to 8-bit in your screen and from what I understand, wide-gamut is typically 10-bit or anything above 8. My system has just had everything reinstalled a couple of day sago, so my installs are all fresh. Is it possible your preset list were "corrupted" somehow from past updates. I doubt it, but anyway, I couldn't suggest any other cause which is why I asked if your system was set to Wide Gamut. Maybe there is something the program does differently if it is enabled... I don't know. This is my preset and color profile list:

Oooh I have to try this again soon. I'm still buzzing over the Expand Stroke update in Designer.

Enjoy your holiday ♪

I transitioned to Clip Studio for my more painterly stuff some time ago, so I agree with you completely on the fluid brush engine. It behaves as you expect a tablet to perform for painting jobs. I even replaced my pens in fact as they were aging to test ongoing issues with pressure in Affinity. It's still hard to get that feel. So I've done some experimenting. I actually have the opposite problem, it feels too heavy-handed and requires a very light touch. Mainly I just use soft/hard rounds for minor brushwork and masking for photo retouching these days. The brush engine seems to work a bit differently than the typical opacity/flow duo method in other programs. For example, to achieve a truer to 0-100% linear pressure sensitivity curve, you have to at least set "Accumulation" at 50% as it "overloads" the brush for lack of a better term and will require a very light touch. So I would suggest checking that. Also you can try adjusting "Flow". It may help the most to share the settings of the "typical" brush you use so others can suggest any changes. And also so we can test against your setup...

Yeah there's definitely a shift in the line when making the move to expansion. I was expecting a more dramatic result like your image which is why I was confused at first. It's slight, but there's enough that it changes the weight of the line that it appears accurate, but it's not acceptable for achieving any kind of pixel-hinted look. (i.e. professional) I noticed this when working in my own designs and manipulating your file. If it were just a padding issue, would be at least workable, but the paths themselves are being misinterpreted.