NobleValerian
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by NobleValerian
-
Guides in Designer could be impoved
NobleValerian replied to Zero Zero's topic in Older Feedback & Suggestion Posts
As a reference point for success, back when I was using Photoshop for everything, this was the MOST valuable plugin I had, and I used it for nearly every single project. http://guideguide.me/ Eventually, Adobe implemented their own system I think, but one of the most useful features was setting up guides relative to a selection. Like being able to set a half inch margin all the way around the document and then have seven equally spaced rows within those margins. There doesn't seem to be any reasonably friendly way to do this in either photo or designer, with grids or guides. -
Grid tool like Photoshop CC
NobleValerian replied to PepGold's topic in Older Feedback & Suggestion Posts
I agree, lots of opportunity for improvement for the grid manager, and especially the guides manager. -
I guess I should have read the help section before ordering through the website. If I wanted the poor care and damaged product that is typical of Amazon when they deliver books, I would have gone through them for the free 2 day shipping instead of waiting a week to see that it came through Amazon anyway. You should probably make that clear on the order page, by the way. I was *incredibly* disappointed to see that there was absolutely no value in ordering directly from you guys. In spite of Amazon's signature crunched corners and binding damage, it looks like it was originally a well made book, and I love well made books. I hope that I'm at least not disappointed in the content.
-
Let's kill two rabbits with one stick. A dedicated selection button would still be nice for people that don't know shortcuts. As to my original problem, I find that I can consistently Ctrl+Click to get a selection from a shape, but only as long as the shape has a fill. On a shape with no fill, this doesn't work. If that's somehow not a bug, please also include the "feature" to Ctrl+Click on a shape with *no* fill to create a selection. Thanks.
-
As long as Photoshop has been around, it still has problems, so I'm not sweating it as long as I can do what I need to do. I don't like having to use workarounds, especially for simple tasks, but at least there are multiple ways to get stuff done.
-
See, I thought that would work, but for whatever reason, it didn't (before posting this). Affinity also crashed last time I used it, so maybe something else was going on. Tried that today... no problem.
-
I'd like to see a button in the Shape Tool that lets you make a selection from the shape, like in the top bar of the Pen Tool.
-
This thread covers all my feelings about it, undoubtedly in excess. https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/32540-ppi-is-not-dpi/
-
Well, that nonsense is just really good bait, I guess. It is only "Effective Resolution" if the resolution change is a result of scaling, so you know if you're going to have enough pixel data for your desired result. A 300 PPI image at 100% does not have an Effective Resolution, it has an Actual Resolution, because it has not been scaled. For the sake of a proper argument, though, we should probably say that you're right. Only for the sake of argument, because the point would be that effective resolution is about how much pixel data will fit into a set amount of space, not how many dots. And the conversation is about PPI vs DPI. Your effective resolution is PPI, not DPI, because how many pixels of data are held within that space has little to do with how many dots will be used to get your final result. And just about every link out there explaining the difference between actual and effective will call it PPI, because until you print, your document is made of pixels, not dots.
-
I'm not feeling like this has been super productive. I never wanted a debate about the merits of using PPI. I doubt I come off very friendly in my posts, anyway. I know where I stand, where some of the staff stand, and I would just like it to say PPI. Users for two years have discussed this. I've considered all the ways this could play out, and I've decided to make an official feature request and be done with it. Hopefully this, and previous, discussions have a positive impact on that request, but I don't think I have much more to say about the topic. It's *AWESOME* software, and feeling like DPI isn't the most appropriate term, for the tiny annoying amount of time I have to look at it every day, doesn't change that for me. https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/32620-a-checkbox-in-interface-preferences-to-show-ppi-instead-of-dpi/?p=158710
-
There is a discussion on PPI vs DPI in the Questions and Feedback section. After discussion and consideration, I'd like to make an official feature request. In the User Interface section of the Preferences in both Designer and Photo, I request that you include a checkbox to change the default DPI setting of documents to PPI. I understand a portion of your staff believe DPI is an appropriate choice, so it could be set to DPI by default, and every one who feels strongly that it should read PPI could have a customization option to change their user experience within the software. I feel that's a good compromise, considering everyone who understands what the field is for would understand that it would typically make no difference to anyone's workflow, and it would appease each party that has a preference to one acronym or the other. Thank you for your consideration, I appreciate your time.
-
The effective resolution is related to scale, dependent on the actual resolution, and it's far from the only thing that matters when it comes to print. For those that don't know, effective resolution basically just means that printing a 300 PPI image at 200% would give it an effective resolution of 150 PPI, and it wouldn't look great, but printing a 600 PPI image at 200% would give it an effective resolution of 300 PPI, so it would still look pretty good. Important to consider, but based on a default, inherent value. It just means you need to think about scaling when printing because you CAN print a great quality image larger and get good results, but you need to print a low resolution image smaller to change it's effective resolution, and get good results. If it's just a two-byte field that doesn't mean anything, why include it?
-
Exactly what? You said: That's wrong. A digital file does have pixel density. I just showed you an image of a JPG with pixel density as an inherent property of the image. Not *every* digital file is an image file, and not *every* digital file has an inherent need for pixel density. A JPG has inherent pixel density, TIFF has it, GIF doesn't seem to store/remember one that you assign (but will always have my display resolution assigned when I open it), and a PNG won't show it when I right click and look at properties - However, if I open a PNG I saved at 300 PPI, it will still be 300 PPI, and the exact same image saved at 72 PPI will still be 72 PPI. That's even true if I export it from Photo and open it in Photoshop, so where does that info come from? A PNG still seems to know if it should be 72 or 300 PPI, and I assume that's inherent to the file and not the software magically guessing which number I want to see. Since Photo or Photoshop will always display a value in this field, and a printer would have no idea what to do if that information wasn't provided in some way (say for like a vector, which just says, "the highest possible bitmap resolution you can muster in this predefined amount of space" (and my knowledge on that process isn't exceptional), or a GIF which seems to be variable based on your display resolution), I think it's safe to consider pixel density an inherent property of a digital file. And it's not a recommendation >.> The printer driver doesn't say, "Oh, I see here your Affinity Photo file is 150 DPI, but all machines know 350 DPI is better so I'm going to go ahead and use that instead. You don't mind if I extrapolate from your file to create some data that doesn't exist there, do ya? Greaaat." -.-
-
I don't know much about obscure old image viewers, you can talk to IrfanView or Affinity about that. I had little to do with the image you sent me, but it still has a pixel density, probably because my monitor has a pixel density. http://orig14.deviantart.net/50fd/f/2016/360/d/1/untitled_by_noblevalerian-dasz1oq.png The image *I* created and uploaded also has a pixel density (of 300), even though it's just a JPG, and that info is stored with the file. http://orig04.deviantart.net/315f/f/2016/360/9/6/untitled_by_noblevalerian-dasz29t.png And yes, it also annoys me that Windows is calling it DPI, especially since the program that created the file uses PPI. Some file types don't store PPI or DPI, because it's just not relevant. Even in the scenario where the PPI is not relevant to the typical display of the file type, you're still doing the same math if you want to print it. It may not matter, or may not be prudent to specify PPI, because one monitor displays 72 pixels every inch, and one displays 96, and one 102, and one 288, or whatever. The data is still measured in pixels. If you want an image without pixel data to print well, and it doesn't have PPI (or DPI), then you still need to figure out how many pixels wide it should be to give enough information to print with good detail. If the standard is 300, it doesn't matter that your document doesn't say 300 PPI (or DPI), because you still told it that you want to to be 1800 px by 1200px, so that it prints well at 6 in by 4 in. If you don't understand that, and all you know is that you need it to be 6 in by 4 in, then you need to understand how much pixel data is suppose to fit into that space. A 6in by 4in document at 1 DPI is not a lot of information. And I feel that if you don't understand that your document is going out as pixels whether you set it in points, inches, feet, yards, mm, cm, or meters... you probably should. I heard what Affinity is saying, so I've asked popular printers why they say DPI, and asked for them to correct it, too. I'm guessing not much comes of that either. If you're going through the trouble of telling me my print quality is a combination of my print DPI, and print LPI, then it's confusing to tell me that you need my document to be at a DPI that doesn't match your print DPI, because now we're talking about two different DPI numbers in the same context. Which is why you have a help section explaining what DPI is, then a help section explaining what your document should include to print properly, then a help section describing the minimum document dimensions in multiple units, then a help section with templates to make sure customers don't screw it up, but then *STILL* getting print issues from improperly sized files from confused customers! Why doesn't the whole world just work in pixels? Keep it simple. "If your document isn't exactly these pixel dimensions for this final print size, we're not going to print it. Your PPI, or DPI, is totally irrelevant. These exact pixel dimensions or you get nothing. The end."
-
96
-
Fine, then I have no idea where the Affinity team, or Serif stands on this. A digital file *does* have a pixel density, and it *does* only come into it when you're sending the file for output, but the file still needs to tell the printer how many of it's pixels should fit into a set amount of space. And that information is set and stored in the file.
-
New document setting - DPI
NobleValerian replied to tonymakepeace's topic in [ARCHIVE] Photo beta on macOS threads
I rest when I please. (and a lot) -
That's true, a loose definition of pixels could include the term dots, and a loose definition of dots could mean pixels. However, the same way the pixels of an image file aren't related to printer DPI, they're also not closely related to physical screen pixels. A physical pixel on your screen uses 3 components (RGB) to represent one piece of pixel information from your file, and depending on your monitor, those components could be all sorts of shapes (including circles and rectangles, whatever shape the diode is), but you could still use your entire monitor (millions of pixels) to display one pixel of file information on your screen. And from my understanding, printers print bitmaps whether the source file is "vector" or "raster". So, from my perspective, PPI is still the most appropriate/correct way to describe the pixel density of your digital file. It's context based, and in the context of a digital file, I say pixel is correct, and dot is not.
-
NobleValerian, on 23 Dec 2016 - 6:26 PM, said: I respect that everyone has a perspective, but if Affinity is unwilling to change it, I think they should just state that, and state why. "We believe DPI is less confusing to our users than PPI, even though it's not very accurate. We understand many of our users would like it to be changed, but everyone who understands the difference is only affected by our lack of accuracy and professionalism, and it makes no difference to their workflow whatsoever, so it will never be a priority for us." (Obviously you don't have to say you lack accuracy and professionalism, that's just the view some of your users have when they see DPI instead of PPI.) I don't have to agree with that choice to respect it, but I can't tell from staff responses over the last 2 years whether this is truly the case, and I'm being patronized, or if there is a legitimate chance your company will consider correcting this in a future update. I respect that your various staff have thoughts on this, but I have no idea where "Affinity" stands on this. It's just not clear what the decision is. One staff member says they agree that it should be changed, one says it's too much of a hassle to change because users are more likely to understand the wrong term, one says it's a perfectly acceptable term, and another says all suggestions are considered. Which is why I reached out to Affinity, and not to the Affinity community. Your users can't decide to change it, so I don't really have a case to make for them. We can just "debate" among ourselves for 2 years without ever getting a real decision on it.
-
And it's not. You sent me to a locked topic linking these threads and told me this is where I should engage. Which was great. I had no idea users were asking for this to change for 2 years.
-
Maybe some amount of banter. Users have been asking for it to be changed for about 2 years. It doesn't affect how I use the software, it's just irksome that it's wrong.
-
Yeah, it answers it very clearly. And the main benefit is that it would be correct, instead of common.
-
My understanding of how printers work is that vector and bitmap images are both processed as bitmap by the print software, so it's still just a question of resolution, which we all know vectors handle very efficiently. And regardless, I don't create an infinite document in Designer, it still has pixel dimensions, and the pixel density of that document still has less of an impact on quality than the printer DPI, paper, and finish.
-
You're right about that. The typical "4K" TV is a good example. I'm glad people want to discuss it, but the only message that I want to send is straight to Affinity, and that's that I don't agree with using it, and I'd love to see it changed. As I've mentioned before, they have great software, and thanks to them, I'll hopefully be dropping my Adobe subscription soon.
-
I explain this in my post, and later posts. The digital file resolution may only be relevant for *when* you print, but it's also still only relevant to your digital file. You can print a 300 PPI document at 300 DPI and 1200DPI and get drastically different results, but printing a document 300 PPI and 1200 PPI at the same DPI is an almost indistinguishable result. If you didn't label them, you wouldn't know which one came from which file. And then if you don't understand the difference, then hearing that you can print a 300 DPI image at 1200 DPI to make it a better quality image than 300 DPI, is inherently confusing. Because if that's true, why can't you just print my 50 DPI image at 1200 DPI to make *that* a better image. The "DPI" settings in Affinity have almost nothing to do with the final print quality of the file. That comes down to print DPI, paper quality, finish, etc. So, it's an important distinction to say your document is measured in pixels, and your print isn't, and describing them both the same way is confusing. And between professional printer reviews and feedback, print on demand feedback, and other online discussions, there's just no legitimate way to say that calling them both DPI makes it easier for anyone, because people all over the place are still getting crappy results and they have to reach out to the printer to find out why. Which is also why so many great printers have so many terrible reviews. My prints will always be sized correctly. Everyone who understands it is always going to have their work sized correctly (well, all other things being equal, I guess). I'm guessing the vast majority of people jumping into a $50 art program are not working professionals who understand this stuff, and either way, it's still not an accurate way to describe your document.
