nezumi

F hell mate... I feel like I am taking crazy pills when I read this forum sometimes... What is this, kindergarten? "I need to press alt? Ow no! not possible to remember!". 😶 
Dont ever try to use some 3D software if this is too much for you to remember. Sorry to be harsh but that sort of things are taking me by surprise. So maybe they should stop adding new functionalities because you know - new things to remember... "Oof" indeed.
BTW - great option indeed.

I do have layer panels open at all times. I do not hear that screaming if you know what I mean

I've well adjusted to <Image> being the default and having to use Rasterize (but not often?) and like @fde101 mentions, it's mission critical to the living data concept behind the programs. It's just that I wish that they had a proper pixel-hinting algo, or at least some real way to control how our images are displaying in the viewport that matches export.. and ACCURATELY without export checks (Layer by layer resample settings hurray?), etc... but I can live with the <Image> default. I just wish it would scream at me more when I go to do something that I find doesn't work on that layer and then go, oh it's an Image Layer... that's why...

I do have a problem I am tracking where Images blur out when I open or include them (and no not a grid issue). I haven't figured out the main cause or if its yet another bug related to DPI scaling on my system... so that would be my main gripe with Images, is that they don't always display reliably, at least on my machine.

I agree wholeheartedly with @nezumi that I don't want to return to Adobe... it's on another level of reliable, sure, but it feels so ancient. Illustrator in particular was like being in an abusive marriage. I reinstalled them recently and realized I do not miss any of this...

Personally I dont need it as default. I just want it as an option. I make it default for myself and happy days I wouldnt want to screw it up for people that do find it useful.

@Bit Arts I really dont want to start thread that is bashing Affinity devs. Call me fanboy 😆 No, but for real - I enjoy a lot using Affinity software. Lot more then I was using Photoshop in its last versions before Affinity showed up for PC. And I used it daily for over 20 years.. Since version 4.0. At the beginning I felt in love with it but it lost appeal to me along the way. Stupid Adobe decisions - and I dont mean dreaded subscription - just got into me. Bloating Photoshop with stuff like video editing, useless (because slow as hell and extremely simple) 3D. At one point they even added 3D printing to Photoshop (which is of course what we are all looking for in photo manipulating software 🤣). At the same time it took 20 years for Adobe to add symmetry - option that I had in Deluxe Paint on Amiga in 90s... Stuff like that.
When I tried Affinity for first time it was so fresh to me - and I still love it for its simplicity. Yes sometimes I am lacking something but I do like more streamlined software. I dont know how is it now in Adobe package - but when I was leaving it jumping from Illustrator to Photoshop meant half of your vectors was rasterized... In Affinity I go back and forth, keeping vectors and the same look. Its brilliant. Also make a test - save the same content in both Adobe and Affinity. Check size of files - Affinity has the very same content saved in much smaller file. It was like this last time I tried it which was couple of years ago but I doubt it changed. I like it, I have thousands upon thousands of files.
Also I had many conversations with somebody representing Affinity, many of things I have asked for was actually added. I dont know if it was even remotely connected to fact that I asked for them but it feels nice when you ask for something and down the line somewhere it actually is added to the software. When it comes to Adobe you were lucky if you got automatic response "our team is working hard on resolving problems and we thank you for sharing that information". Or some other corpo-nonsense.
HOWEVER... 😏
I still dont understand some decisions behind Affinity. Admittedly very few. Like that export thing or incredibly useless for me "image" thing which only stays in the way of faster work. I want to think its useful for photographers - which I am not. So I dont want to judge whole usefulness of it based only on my personal needs, but I would like Photo to fit bit better into my daily routine where I am dragging different pictures from other software or copy-pasting them into one document etc. And that "image" mode is only standing in the way. Thats all. If possible I would love to see that. If not I will go back to...! Nah, just joking 😁 If not then I will still keep on clicking that bloody "rasterize", asking myself:
 

Don't worry, I guess we all have our individual "Affinity pet peeves".  

@Bit Arts I really dont want to start thread that is bashing Affinity devs. Call me fanboy 😆 No, but for real - I enjoy a lot using Affinity software. Lot more then I was using Photoshop in its last versions before Affinity showed up for PC. And I used it daily for over 20 years.. Since version 4.0. At the beginning I felt in love with it but it lost appeal to me along the way. Stupid Adobe decisions - and I dont mean dreaded subscription - just got into me. Bloating Photoshop with stuff like video editing, useless (because slow as hell and extremely simple) 3D. At one point they even added 3D printing to Photoshop (which is of course what we are all looking for in photo manipulating software 🤣). At the same time it took 20 years for Adobe to add symmetry - option that I had in Deluxe Paint on Amiga in 90s... Stuff like that.
When I tried Affinity for first time it was so fresh to me - and I still love it for its simplicity. Yes sometimes I am lacking something but I do like more streamlined software. I dont know how is it now in Adobe package - but when I was leaving it jumping from Illustrator to Photoshop meant half of your vectors was rasterized... In Affinity I go back and forth, keeping vectors and the same look. Its brilliant. Also make a test - save the same content in both Adobe and Affinity. Check size of files - Affinity has the very same content saved in much smaller file. It was like this last time I tried it which was couple of years ago but I doubt it changed. I like it, I have thousands upon thousands of files.
Also I had many conversations with somebody representing Affinity, many of things I have asked for was actually added. I dont know if it was even remotely connected to fact that I asked for them but it feels nice when you ask for something and down the line somewhere it actually is added to the software. When it comes to Adobe you were lucky if you got automatic response "our team is working hard on resolving problems and we thank you for sharing that information". Or some other corpo-nonsense.
HOWEVER... 😏
I still dont understand some decisions behind Affinity. Admittedly very few. Like that export thing or incredibly useless for me "image" thing which only stays in the way of faster work. I want to think its useful for photographers - which I am not. So I dont want to judge whole usefulness of it based only on my personal needs, but I would like Photo to fit bit better into my daily routine where I am dragging different pictures from other software or copy-pasting them into one document etc. And that "image" mode is only standing in the way. Thats all. If possible I would love to see that. If not I will go back to...! Nah, just joking 😁 If not then I will still keep on clicking that bloody "rasterize", asking myself:
 

Well actually it depends on how one includes/places images here, aka if via the menu option "File -> Place ...", or drag'n'drop. - If one uses the drag'n'drop procedure, then it depends where one drags to and releases, aka ...
when dragging and dropping directly into the boundaries of a document area/canvas, then an image will be placed as an "(image") layer. when dragging and dropping outside the boundaries of a document canvas, then a new doc will be created with a "(background pixel") layer. You would still have to copy/paste that new doc layer then over into your working doc. ... see also related ...
https://affinity.help/photo2/English.lproj/index.html?page=pages/GetStarted/openDocument.html?title=Opening documents and images  
Though I agree, that some setable option for the handling of photo placements as (image) versus (pixel) layers would make sense to have here. Or to have some "File -> Place as Pixel Layer..." menu option. And/or some drag'n'drop shortcut (Alt-Drag ... etc.) capability in order to distinguish when releasing (drop) between the wanted layer placement type methods (image vs pixel layer) here.
 

@loukash Yeah. One. Problem is that often I have need to bring into one composition say 20 different pictures. If I had to open 20 different pictures and then have to copy/paste 20 of them into one composition - its easier to place them and rasterize in mass. And the whole issue is - I dont want to be forced to additional, frankly unnecessary clicks for option I never need.
@Bit Arts - or should I say "Bit Harsh" 😉
I have Affinity from the very first day on PC. I really love using it and I have abandoned Photoshop for it didn't looked back. But this "image" thing is really driving me mad from the very beginning. And I understand that somebody, somewhere, somehow has use for that "image" thing. I honestly cant imagine single use for it in what I do. Not one. I will never need it it seems. All it does for me personally is annoying me. I dont want to take it away from those who find it useful but I would be so happy not having to put up with it. Option to choose. I even used to weirdness of "export" instead of "save as...". Although I still miss click at times  😆.
@Old Bruce I do appreciate help man, I know I could make shortcut. The whole thing is I would love to be able to avoid that completely useless for me "image".

F hell mate... I feel like I am taking crazy pills when I read this forum sometimes... What is this, kindergarten? "I need to press alt? Ow no! not possible to remember!". 😶 
Dont ever try to use some 3D software if this is too much for you to remember. Sorry to be harsh but that sort of things are taking me by surprise. So maybe they should stop adding new functionalities because you know - new things to remember... "Oof" indeed.
BTW - great option indeed.

F hell mate... I feel like I am taking crazy pills when I read this forum sometimes... What is this, kindergarten? "I need to press alt? Ow no! not possible to remember!". 😶 
Dont ever try to use some 3D software if this is too much for you to remember. Sorry to be harsh but that sort of things are taking me by surprise. So maybe they should stop adding new functionalities because you know - new things to remember... "Oof" indeed.
BTW - great option indeed.

I hope Affinity team will not waste time on AI and just keep on improving tools itself. And I mean both - AI generation and protection against AI. Its just a waste of resources. I would rather see good automatic tracing in Designer rather then some AI useless bloat just because everybody are doing it, fascinated like kids in circus for the first time. "Look mom, a picture!".
Thats why I love Affinity in a first place - its not bloated with garbage.

I'm genuinely puzzled why all those smart folks who argue that "if Serif doesn't implement [insert your wet dream feature here] then they will go out of business in three, two, one" simply don't start their own company and make the big bucks themselves…?  

So the one thing that is sure is that Affinity MUST include AI tools or otherwise it will be doomed. Who would still buy a car without power steering? 
Maybe an easy fix could be to include a plugin like Alpaca AI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4O07Zuy3uc

I don't know yet about using it for artwork. I did look at it for code generation. The results were not good. I refer you to the link below. 
 

Just to muddy the waters a bit more, the choreographer(s), director(s), dancer(s) et al do not necessarily do what they think the writer intends, & may even film several different versions to see which one works best for the final release.

Look, if somebody wants to feel like he is creating something by simply writing what he wants thats fine. If you want to consider a "tool" something that does everything - I cant stop you. People have all sorts of fantasies about themselves, all sorts of delusions and I will not judge that. But also dont expect me to call you a creator when all you did is telling what you want. By this standards you would consider yourself a builder because you said a guy where you want to have a window and he did it for you. An electrician - when you said to a guy that you want to have a new lamp hanging from the ceiling and he did it for you. A plumber - because you have pointed to the sink thats clogged. And so on.
If you want to consider yourself a driver while sitting in the passenger seat thats cool with me. But please kindly dont expect me to join you in believing in that illusion. And by all means - have fun with your toy steering wheel making "brooom! brooom!" noises while somebody else is driving. Its important to have fun in life.
Now if you excuse me - I need to catch a plane.
I'm a pilot, you know. I told the person at the counter where I want to fly.

OK, but in generative AI there is no one person who collects everything used to generate the output. That is the result of the algorithm(s) that powers the AI & the material it was trained on. So does that mean there is no one person who can claim credit for it, or more importantly has the rights to say who can use it?

Look, if somebody wants to feel like he is creating something by simply writing what he wants thats fine. If you want to consider a "tool" something that does everything - I cant stop you. People have all sorts of fantasies about themselves, all sorts of delusions and I will not judge that. But also dont expect me to call you a creator when all you did is telling what you want. By this standards you would consider yourself a builder because you said a guy where you want to have a window and he did it for you. An electrician - when you said to a guy that you want to have a new lamp hanging from the ceiling and he did it for you. A plumber - because you have pointed to the sink thats clogged. And so on.
If you want to consider yourself a driver while sitting in the passenger seat thats cool with me. But please kindly dont expect me to join you in believing in that illusion. And by all means - have fun with your toy steering wheel making "brooom! brooom!" noises while somebody else is driving. Its important to have fun in life.
Now if you excuse me - I need to catch a plane.
I'm a pilot, you know. I told the person at the counter where I want to fly.

Look, if somebody wants to feel like he is creating something by simply writing what he wants thats fine. If you want to consider a "tool" something that does everything - I cant stop you. People have all sorts of fantasies about themselves, all sorts of delusions and I will not judge that. But also dont expect me to call you a creator when all you did is telling what you want. By this standards you would consider yourself a builder because you said a guy where you want to have a window and he did it for you. An electrician - when you said to a guy that you want to have a new lamp hanging from the ceiling and he did it for you. A plumber - because you have pointed to the sink thats clogged. And so on.
If you want to consider yourself a driver while sitting in the passenger seat thats cool with me. But please kindly dont expect me to join you in believing in that illusion. And by all means - have fun with your toy steering wheel making "brooom! brooom!" noises while somebody else is driving. Its important to have fun in life.
Now if you excuse me - I need to catch a plane.
I'm a pilot, you know. I told the person at the counter where I want to fly.

If you want to stretch it then anybody who had any idea ever technically was part of creative art. That will make literally everybody an artist even if they never actually created any art. Every commissioner, every client would suddenly become artist because he had idea - therefore took part of creative process, right?
No, he didnt.
Thinking about something and actually making it is whole different story. Anybody who have ever tried to draw something will quickly notice that bringing to life, to physical world this idea, that seemed so clear in his head is in fact very vague, missing details and his hand is not drawing at all what he had in mind. It takes many years of training (hey, its me, captain Obvious) to actually make ideas reality. If somebody commissioned a piece to an artist, or wrote a prompt - he is not creator. He commissioned it precisely because was unable to create. He can have all the philosophical excuses in the world, make all the mental gymnastics in order to convince others and himself that he also is the creator. But everybody knows reality. So theres nothing to argue really. If you have paid runner to win a race you are not partly athlete Its just absurd and quite sad to see people even bringing that silliness up. If you can do iy YOURSELF you are the creator. If you need to ask somebody/something to make it for you - you are not. Simple as that.

If you want to stretch it then anybody who had any idea ever technically was part of creative art. That will make literally everybody an artist even if they never actually created any art. Every commissioner, every client would suddenly become artist because he had idea - therefore took part of creative process, right?
No, he didnt.
Thinking about something and actually making it is whole different story. Anybody who have ever tried to draw something will quickly notice that bringing to life, to physical world this idea, that seemed so clear in his head is in fact very vague, missing details and his hand is not drawing at all what he had in mind. It takes many years of training (hey, its me, captain Obvious) to actually make ideas reality. If somebody commissioned a piece to an artist, or wrote a prompt - he is not creator. He commissioned it precisely because was unable to create. He can have all the philosophical excuses in the world, make all the mental gymnastics in order to convince others and himself that he also is the creator. But everybody knows reality. So theres nothing to argue really. If you have paid runner to win a race you are not partly athlete Its just absurd and quite sad to see people even bringing that silliness up. If you can do iy YOURSELF you are the creator. If you need to ask somebody/something to make it for you - you are not. Simple as that.

If you want to stretch it then anybody who had any idea ever technically was part of creative art. That will make literally everybody an artist even if they never actually created any art. Every commissioner, every client would suddenly become artist because he had idea - therefore took part of creative process, right?
No, he didnt.
Thinking about something and actually making it is whole different story. Anybody who have ever tried to draw something will quickly notice that bringing to life, to physical world this idea, that seemed so clear in his head is in fact very vague, missing details and his hand is not drawing at all what he had in mind. It takes many years of training (hey, its me, captain Obvious) to actually make ideas reality. If somebody commissioned a piece to an artist, or wrote a prompt - he is not creator. He commissioned it precisely because was unable to create. He can have all the philosophical excuses in the world, make all the mental gymnastics in order to convince others and himself that he also is the creator. But everybody knows reality. So theres nothing to argue really. If you have paid runner to win a race you are not partly athlete Its just absurd and quite sad to see people even bringing that silliness up. If you can do iy YOURSELF you are the creator. If you need to ask somebody/something to make it for you - you are not. Simple as that.

"Generative" doesn't have to mean "total creation". For what amounts to "inpainting on steroids", I'm totally OK with AI. For more intelligent selections, more accurate masking, more realistic colors, shading and tones, etc., etc., bring AI on. Can't be soon enough.
But I have no interest in totally AI-generated imagery. As a hobbyist photographer, AI won't affect my photography. I'll shoot (or not) by my on accord, not because I have to. But in a much larger sense AI will obviously have a huge impact and probably more often than not, a negative impact.
As a side note, I find it amusing that totally AI-generated images are often credited as "AI art by <firstname> <lastname> via Midjourney" (or whatever). Why even include a name? They did nothing but write a request. They couldn't predictably nor accurately change the output imagery through their request anyway.

That's fine, no point in arguing back and forth. We disagree, no problem.