yuga

its not really fixed anything, it's still awkward/impossible to use for channel packing compared to the likes of photoshop... and trust me I hate photoshop, I'd prefer Affinity any day but sadly this is the one thing I can't live without and Affinity doesn't provide. I'm still not exactly sure why it's an issue... People want to draw or copy paste, in all 4 channels, a black and white image(mask, layer whatever people call it) and save that out as a tga, tif, exr etc for the sake of using each channel but simply cannot do that without destruction occurring. It seems deceptively simple maybe, but it's such a basic function. 

Sadly I still can't defend Affinity Photo in this regard because it makes the application useless to everyone in my line of work. I do however still recommend Designer, but someone pointed out there is no timeline animation in designer or photo which would make their jobs as UI designers also harder/more awkward than just using Illustrator... Which kind of leaves me here saying "you could use affinity but it wont do things you want it to do, and then devs know this but haven't done anything about it for several years".

Mind you you guys did add TGA eventually which I still thank you kindly for.

 

It's stuff like this which makes it impossible for me to convert to Affinity from Photoshop, as much as I want to 😭

and it would also be really useful if (in all apps on desktop as well):
A: the selected brush in the list stayed highlighted as long as it is being used and
B: there was a reset button to go back to the brushes original settings.

Shall we all ask to return our copies of Affinity Photo ? I don’t use it anymore due to the Alpha Channel debacle and I could do with the £50. I could send my book back too

Besides doing image editing for video (where alphas are required), I also do lots of image editing for 3D texturing (where alphas are also required) and I also do photo retouching and calibration for printing where... guess what, ALPHAS ARE ALSO REQUIRED.
Dealing with alphas is a must for any professional that works with images, no matter what field it works on. Is it professional work? Ok, so, dealing with alphas is required.
And working with alphas should be as straightforwards as working with any greyscale image.
Whatever could be done with a greyscale image should be possible to do with alphas, and it should work exactly the same way.
Alphas ARE greyscale images!!! Alphas are just information about opacity.
So, why are alphas different in AP?
I have been asking this ever since the beta versions of Affinity Photo and, if I recall correctly, I was told that working with alphas would be addressed and that it would become easier.
It hasn't! It is still a nightmare.
Will it ever change? As it is now, I can't work with alphas in AP.

Forget about Potential purchasers there are already a ton of us clients who are complaining about the asinine alpha & channels workflow. I (like so many others) find this to be the one thing that forces me to have to use other software. And the fact that 3 or 4 years later it still isn't addressed is quite honestly disheartening. I was complaining about this back in 2016 and 2017:
 
Heck in this post 3 years ago a mod said "This has been logged with our developers. Hopefully we'll add better support in the future :)" well here we are in the future and nothing has changed.
 

My guess is that Adobe has some IP in this area and so it is being avoided. There is no other good explanation really. Saying "Affinity is not for game devs" is just silly. We're not talking about adding some complex rendering capability, this is really basic and required by many users. I have already purchased but am thinking I will need to move back to PS. I've stopped recommending Affinity to other people as well.

Adding to this, bottom line is no matter what dev says, replies, cites, or explains over and over, I can't find one post or comment online praising Affinity Photo alpha channel related features or workflow.
I however, as many other experienced AND HOBBYIST graphic artists, each time  trumped or frustrated when in need of an alpha channel in AP, can easely find writings about users not liking it, and worse, STILL not understand it any better.
just like me, as I just did.
 
Once again.
 
 

I was about to promote AP to digital painters and concept artists in my community as a photoshop alternative, but based on your answer @Patrick Connor I will make sure to support products with teams who care about the game art market, (including donating to open source projects like Krita).

Thanks for being very honest though, at least I know upfront before recommending AP to people in the games industry.

You know I don't agree with that and I stick by what I said - it makes no sense at all, I was actually pointing out that it was a problem for game dev, but its a problem for anyone who wishes to use transparency, especially any kind of developer and currently the way it works in Affinity Photo is an absolute joke to be honest. I'm a developer and I'm surprised how badly it has been implemented especially considering how easy it would be to implement. At this stage I'm not sure what the point of the alpha channel is, and sorry if I come across as being harsh, but it is pretty useless currently and if there is some magical way of putting it to use, it is in dire need of UAT, alpha channels are an industry standard its got nothing to do with our particular use case at all.

Is there any way to get the developer's attention on this? The current workflow makes affinity photo unusable for any texture work in games involving alphas. Especially for Unity where you routinely have to copy roughness into the alpha channel of the metallic map.
I hate photoshop but this is a deal breaker for me. Give us the ability to copy paste buffer into alpha.

I still don't get it. At all. Alpha's in AP have been a complete mystery to me since day one.
In PS you can edit  alphas just like any other layer and it's as simple as it sounds.
in AP there are all kinds of edit and visibility buttons that either appear to do nothing or do what you least expect them to, and menu options that I simply, try as I might, do not understand. At all.
I've tonight resorted to simply saving a separate black and white image out and calling that my alpha. Does the job. Totally not what you want for a game engine, but I don't need that any more, I just need a black and white image, and don't really mind that it's not embedded as an alpha...
... although that would be very nice!

All layers have an alpha channel associated (in Photoshop or in Affinity Photo). Even if they don't have additional alpha masks, ALL layers have, at least an internal alpha channel associated.
When I create a pixel based layer, it stores RGB information and alpha information too. In Photoshop, the layer and associated alpha are internally compressed (don't know if they do the same in Affinity Photo).
However, due to non-continuity of pixel values, compression is not always very efficient. And compressing and decompressing, on the fly, taxes computer resources. The more contiguous color we have (in any or all channels), the more efficient the compression/decompression procedure is.
When I use a Solid Color (in Photoshop) or a Rectangle (in Affinity Photo), I'm creating a parametric object that weights almost nothing, in terms of storage. Also, it is highly compressable (if it even needs compressing). This means it only stores the parametric information and an 8 bit (or 16 bit) alpha channel.
So, using a Solid Color or an Object is always much more efficient than using pixel based layers.
Specially when dealing with HUGE documents (and, sometimes, I have to create 90+ layer documents, with several GB of size).
Of course I also use pixel based layers sometimes, when I find it more useful or flexible.
 
I know how Photoshop works inside. I have been using it since version 1.0 and I'm a Photoshop teacher. I'm also a programmer and I usually decide on what methods to use depending on what I know that is happening "under the covers", structurally and code-wise.
 
I hope I can get as proficient and knowledgeable in Affinity Photo as I am with Photoshop :)

"Get rid of the mask completely and make all shape adjustments on a pixel layer with attached non-destructive adjustment layers like levels, curves and gaussian blur (use a live filter and you can paint the filter's own individual mask to gradually fade the blur)"
 
Actually, it doesn't do the same.
Using a live filter with a mask to gradually fade the blur will do what the description says: it gradually fades the blur. The problem with gradually fading the blur is that there are areas where you get a percentage of the blur blended in a non-blurred image. This is because the live filter is applying the full radius of the blur and the mask is only fading that full radius blur. It is not applying increasing amounts of blur, which is what I want to make it more realistic.
So, the live filter with a mask produces this:
 

And my method, with the use of mask manipulation, will produce this:
 

There is no sharp image blended with a blurred image in some areas. There is only an increasing blur, from less blurred at the bottom to more blurred at the top.
 
And yes, I know that mask manipulation is still being worked on. That is great.
I hope I can completely replace Photoshop with Affinity Photo. But, until I can do whatever I want with a mask (that is just a greyscale image, after all), I can't do it.
And if I delivered a post-produced image using the method of the live filter with a gradient mask to the agency that usually hires me for doing photo compositing, they would tell me that it is not the quality standard I usually deliver.

When I came across Affinitiy Photo recently, I was very impressed about many aspects and features of the software.
  Today I have therefore tried a typical workflow from RAW-processing to final photo-retouching.   While trying to working with alpha channels I've unfortunately reached my limits of working with this software.   As ui_mac already mentioned, working with alpha channels is indispensable for professional image editing.

I cannot agree more with the requests made here.
The Affinity mask behaviour seems completely wrong to me (and this is hurtful considering how much Affinity Photo or Designer are good).
Fixx last comment makes absolute sense.
I've also been on my side asking about enhancements:
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/41815-mask-gradients-enhancement-highly-needed/
 
Today (that's the reason of my answer here), I had to outline a people silhouette.
I've first used the selection brush + refine to get the main part of it, then created a mask.
Obviously, you still have greyed area, like here:

In Photoshit, you just have to get the dodge tool, paint, and boom, you're done with a perfect mask.
 
In Affinity Photo, I've lost great time just to figure out the workarounds.
• You cannot dodge / burn the mask
• You cannot level / curve the mask
• You cannot use brush blend mode on the mask
• You cannot draw gradient (while keeping previous painting) on mask
• You cannot covert the mask to a basic pixel layer so dodge, burn, level, etc. would finally work…
 
These are quite some limitations just for a mask don't you think?
 
You must merge your mask twice (for white + black) before been able to get a black & white layer (or get the pixel selection of the mask and fill a pixel layer)
Then you do your work (with NO preview since it's not a mask anymore.
Then you rasterize to mask hopping you're adjustments are goods… Guess what if not… you start over the complete thing… it's seriously madness.

Hi rui_mac,
You're not alone. I'm also hoping this will get implemented. I know you've requested it a few times and i still hope it will be added at some point, however i don't have much details about this yet :(

I make computer games. I've done it for 20 years.
 
Its really frustrating that the only piece of software on the market that works with Alpha channels correctly is Photoshop. I *HOPED* that Affinity Photo would have done it right too (you'lve done a lot of things right). But as a game maker I need my image software to the following:
1. When I say a map needs to be 256x256 or 512x512 pixels, SAVE IT AS 256X256 or 512x512 pixels. I don't want some helpful algorithm thinking it sees a bunch of pixels that are empty. So it will shrink-wrap the map to eliminate the dead pixels. While this might make sense for many photograph needs. Its a bad policy for games. 
2. Alpha channel editing. We do a lot of stuff that can require weird alpha tweaking. It feels like working with Alpha channels in AP is awkward. Look at photoshop for inspiration. I need to paint the alpha. I need to do gradients in alpha. I need the alpha just to be a grayscale image I can modify. For that matter, I sometimes need to do that to RGB channels independently as well. Instead. Channels feel like they are special and not just a layer I can paint. Maybe this is already easy to do. But frankly, its not straightforward to do if it is.