harrym

^^
from all tests I've done I think it's more like
Lanczos 3 (sharp) Lanczos 3 (too sharp)  
;) 

^^
from all tests I've done I think it's more like
Lanczos 3 (sharp) Lanczos 3 (too sharp)  
;) 

I know shouting is frowned upon but.... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PRETTY PLEEESE! 🥰
I'm sure this has been asked for like a few years ago 😥

Your deleted area is transparent so create a new raster layer, put it below your background layer and paste new image or gradient/colour to the new layer but the trick is to make it look natural though and that might look a bit false so check out this video
 

The Affinity forums are scarred and diffused by unqualified opinions and lack of business and real world usage knowledge. It is sad to see how request threads are distorted and disturbed by amateurs with opinions for years with no end in sight. Serif may or may not change Affinity to support it. But they may change their minds. Look at WebP. The real world usage may lead Serif to a new decision despite earlier rejections of WebP. People share their needs and requests here for Serif to notice it and take notes. What follows in the request threads is often proof that Serif has ever so few professional users in reality. Should professionals visit this forum they will notice this immediately. 
The lock-down and vacation is over for me and I am again working with creative and skilled professionals on weekdays in my office. I had forgotten how big the contrast is coming here.
 

Yet another example of where sticky settings or preferences would resolve a usability issue.

You should skip reading this if you lack patience with old guys reminiscing, talking history and philosophy, and describing the Principle of the Compelling Reason as it applies to software.
=========
INTUITION
Intuition is no more than experience and familiarity. I give Affinity developers the benefit of the doubt and assume they had a system in mind when they designed APhoto. I suspect that APhoto is very intuitive to those developers.
If I want to use the Affinity software, then I need only learn the habits of mind and patterns of thought that the Affinity designers used to develop APhoto. If their habits of mind are different from what I'm accustomed to, then that's my opportunity to learn new ways of thinking about photo editing. 
==================================
PRINCIPLE OF THE COMPELLING REASON
Decades ago, when I was supporting hundreds of PC users in a large organization, I formulated my Principle of the Compelling Reason. It goes like this:
   No one switches from familiar software to unfamiliar software without a compelling reason. 
I learned this Principle when looking for a "better" word processor. I started with GML/Script on an IBM mainframe. Then PCs with floppy disks arrived so I learned PC-Write. Then PCs with hard drives came along and our physical document on diskette became an abstract magnetic entity on a hard disk. Computers changed from being useful appliances like typewriters to being systems that needed to be managed. Handling documents became more abstract. Some people had problems adapting. Many young persons today might not appreciate that leap. They have grown up "intuitively" understanding PCs with hard drives (or maybe they just think they understand them). Eventually I was forced onto WordPerfect because PC-Write fell behind after desktop laser printers became common.
That's where my "compelling reason" came in. I loathed WordPerfect. It was a throwback to the mainframe days of document markup languages. A document was viewed as a continuous stream of characters with embedded control codes that caused certain things to happen when the data stream was sent to the screen or printer. I hated WordPerfect's "reveal codes."
A friend suggested Word for Windows. It was stunning. This was an entirely different way of looking at word processing. It was object oriented. Sentences and paragraphs were not data streams but objects with properties. This seemed to me the way that word processing "ought" to be done. I should not have to insert codes into my document to instruct the computer what to do. Instead, I should simply describe the desired end result and the computer should figure out how to do it. This may all seem obvious and intutitive today. It was not so at that time. Indeed, it took geniuses to develop these ideas.
To begin thinking like the designers of Word, I forced myself to use it for my next large writing project. It took a month of hard work and the help of a couple of excellent books about Word. By the end of that month, I was proficient with Word. "Suddenly" it was the "intuitive" way to do word processing. I enthusiastically promoted Word. Alas, many did not have a compelling reason to switch from WordPerfect, which had taken them considerable effort to learn. Some prided themselves on their knowledge of the codes revealed.
Great battles ensued at my university concerning the "right" software for word processing. The software wars were vicious, as were the platform wars. Whole colleges were at war with the computing center and with each other. Those in power sought to control what software we used on our desktops. The battles went on for years as different people with different agendas moved in and out of positions of power, but that's another story.
==================
DISCOVERING APHOTO
All this is background for my discovery of APhoto 3-1/2 years ago. I'd been using Photoshop Elements for nearly 15 years, reading many books on photo editing and restoration during that time. I had tried and even purchased a couple of competing products, but found them lacking. 
One day I upgraded to a new version of PSE only to find that they had removed a feature I used regularly. I read that the developers didn't want to bother upgrading the code for that feature to 64-bit. Whatever the reason, here was my compelling reason to investigate the competition.
After reading about APhoto, I thought this is the way it "ought" to be. During all my years using PSE, I do not recall ever reading about non-destructive photo editing. Yet that was the emphasis with APhoto.
Now, after 3-1/2 years of using APhoto and watching many dozens if not hundreds of tutorials, I'm reasonably proficient at using the software for my amateur purposes. I've developed the habits of mind and patterns of thought that allow APhoto to be intuitive for me.
That's not to say I don't have complaints about APhoto. I've voiced some of them in these forums. But I have no complaint about APhoto being non-intuitive. If I find something that seems weird, I examine my habits of mind and patterns of thought, adjusting them as necessary to understand the software tool I've chosen to use.

To be clear, this is not an imperial vs. metric thing - documents created from imported images are defaulting to pixels (not to a metric unit), which is the most sensible measurement due to the fact that an image which has no inherent physical size of its own is being imported and there is nothing within it to suggest what the physical size or unit of dimension should be.
If you have the ruler displayed, you can very quickly switch to inches or any other unit by right-clicking on the corner of the ruler and selecting the unit you are interested in:

 
The DPI setting can be adjusted by going to Document -> Resize Document and making sure Resample is unchecked.  You can also change the units from there if you don't have the rulers displayed (or even if you do and need to access this to adjust the DPI anyway).
Again, this will be accurate for at most one print size at a time.  As an image is likely to be printed in multiple sizes for multiple purposes, this is of questionable value to begin with.

Hi,
When using the crop tool, if the mouse goes out of the visible area while dragging, the window's content is not automatically scrolling to follow the mouse. One has to repeat the dragging for cropping several times, until the target margin is finally seen.
I would like if dragging would also scroll the windows content, following the mouse going over the windows margin.
Paolo
 

This will be us
 

I would love to see:
Drag & Drop photos into panorama and HDR from other tools (like explorer) building 360° panorama more comprehensible approach in manipulation a just builded panorama. A quicker preview of a manipulated panorama. The recalculation time kills me  

It would be useful. But I find it easy enough to set white and black points by dragging triangles in histogram, using eyedropper to click black and white does not bring much advance. YMMV.
But what really handy things are missing now:
auto (will set white and black points automatically, can be tweaked by user after)
white balance (the grey eyedropper)
tone clipping alert (available only in develop persona, would really help in setting white and black points)

Good questions, though non sequitur.
The same question faces all product developers, software and otherwise. In Fred Brooks' famous Mythical Man Month, he talks about the Chief Surgeon approach, perhaps now called Chief Architect or somesuch. One person who holds together the vision, structure and method. This is often needs a loose-tight balancing approach, where integrity and progress is maintained alongside the ability to listen, experiment and explore.
The successful Chief could be a dictatorial manager, but is more effective as a servant leader, with a key attribute in wisdom, being able to hear all options and making sound choices for both the short and long term. Photo editing is a highly competitive space and Serif have been very successful in carving out a niche against such as the Adobe gorilla, the Luminar marketing machine and the open source Gimp. I have invested heavily in Affinity, contribute as I can, and have great hopes for their future.

If your going to run a licensed copy of MSOS anyway VM or not what's the point?

A year or two ago I would have voted yes but I've just gone for no. Leave Affinity to do what it does best, compete against Photoshop. Trying to use a screwdriver as a hammer isn't a good idea and if you set off down the DAM path you're up against Lightroom/On1 PhotoRAW/Capture One and a few others and they are different beasts altogether, though it is surprising how many people cannot see the differences. 
Of course if Serif decided to build a separate product to go up against LR, one where you could make a "round trip" to Affinity when / if required, one that includes a DAM, import facilities (e.g. file renaming), metadata handling, searching, slideshow, geotagging and all that, then count me in. But that's a different product altogether. It would need a better RAW engine too. My efforts editing Nikon RAW from scratch with Affinity never look as good as the same photo edited in LR. Before anyone screams, that may have something to do with my skill, or lack thereof. 
The current "round trip" experience would be a lot better, whatever RAW editor you use, if they used Save/Save As in the same way as 99% of other Windows programs and ditched Export.
JH

Yeah, at last!
Here's hoping the pano dialogue gets some love and an upgrade at some point too!

I just updated to the 1.9 version of Affinity Photo a couple of days ago and I noticed that when I created a panorama, which is what I specialize in, the pano resolution was 300 PPI, which is the same as the original individual images. In the past the default resolution for panos, stacks, HDR, and focus merge, was 96 PPI. 
I am glad you finally corrected that little flaw because it was a hassle to have to manually change my panos from 96 to 300 PPI. Now that is a step I no longer have to do.
Can I assume that the new resolution will apply to stacks, HDR, and focus merges as long as my original individual images are 300 PPI?
Are there other features that were added to the program with this new update?
Just wondering because I have not had the chance to check all the drop-down menus for any new features yet.

Hi all,
The RAW file contains a good amount of sharpening, which was applied by the camera when it created the JPEG file. See scren capture below (sorry for german language).
The noise reduction was set to 1, allmost nothing.
With help of the (free for camera owners) Canon DPP software, you can always check those settings (and adjust them).
Comparing Affinity Photo vs. in-camera JPEG (or Canon DPP processed) is always apples to oranges:
All Canon HW + software adheres to the user-selected pre-sets like "picture style", which affects contrast, saturation, sharpening, filter effects like B&W, etc, plus the individual camera adjustments (exposure, white balance, noise reduction ...)
In total contrast, AP is unable to read these information from the CR2 RAW file, and will apply completely different settings based on "Develop Assistent" and user preferences.
This always leads to completely different results for JPEG files processed from the 100% identical RAW files, between the Canon HW/SW and Affinity SW.
Next, Affinity uses its own pre-sets for JPEG exports regarding quality, re-sampling etc.
To sum up:
The only way to get "Canon" like JPEG from CR2 files is to process them first with Canon DPP (its free), then export to TIFF16. You can then start your creative work in Affinity with opening the TIFF16., and later export as JPEG.
If you directly open the CR2 RAW, you might get good results, too, but never ever a results which is directly comparable to canon JPEGs.
One (remote) option would be to create a totally "flat" canon picture style (based on "neutral"), upload this to the camera with help of Canon picture style editor, and leave all camera settings to "0" like exposure, white balance etc. Nobody wants to work like this.
My intentions is not to blame anybody, only to explain why you cannot compare Canon out-of-camera JPEG with affinity Photo developed JPEG.
I have seen many threads lately, mostly assuming export issues with noise or sharpening. There is nothing wrong in Affinity.
The only "fault" of affinity is that it ignores the individual settings contained in the CR2 files.
 

@Xander93, you seem to want to be able to save your image/data in a Photoshop .raw file despite the caveat shown in the image you post. At the right-hand side, under Photoshop Raw options it says: 'The Photoshop Raw file format does not fully encode the image mode and size, amongst other things. The image may not be fully restored when you re-open the file'. 
Why should you want to do this when you could save it as an .afphoto file, which will preserve all the information and processing you have done? Or you could export as a 16-bit .tiff file which would be readable by other photo apps (even Photoshop).
Remember the word raw means '(of data) not analysed, evaluated, or processed for use' (from the OED). Once you have even part-processed your data, it is no longer raw.
John

Exactly there is absolutely nothing in elements that you can't do in AF and as a photographer good luck with start to end 16bit non destructive workflow and embedded ICC print profiles.
Have to say it does feel like there is a certain amount of baiting going on here.

You can use masks in Photo to achieve the same thing.

Why do you want to put each part onto the base layer? That's destructive editing, very inefficient. I wouldn't build an image like that even in PS. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, forums can be quite frustrating at times when trying to explain things!

@jmwellborn Everyone of those dogs I photographed, were adopted within 30 days. I was very happy I was able to help with that. Cost them $0.00 for that.

Why do you want to put each part onto the base layer? That's destructive editing, very inefficient. I wouldn't build an image like that even in PS. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, forums can be quite frustrating at times when trying to explain things!

When I knew that I would like to make some good pictures/shots of my (imaginary, I don't have a) dog, I for sure wouldn't place him on a background like that one, which has similar color tones as his fur. - Instead, I would make the same effort as if I were photographing one of my models, i.e. making sure that the background and lighting conditions are appropriate. Here especially when I know that I may later want to reuse them probably cutted out from the initial choosen background.
Such images like the above one are probably good ones for testing AI-driven autoseletion algorithms, in order to see how good trained these are in distingushing the main subject of attraction from the similar colored background.