Tooslow

I asked for this when Photo first came out on Windows. It is enormously disappointing that it is still not there, it must be simple enough surely? The amount of time I waste chasing up and down folder trees, starting a C: every time :-(

I asked for this when Photo first came out on Windows. It is enormously disappointing that it is still not there, it must be simple enough surely? The amount of time I waste chasing up and down folder trees, starting a C: every time :-(

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

I guess another item for my wishlist would be full screen preview...  
Not a big deal but it would be nice.

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

I asked for this when Photo first came out on Windows. It is enormously disappointing that it is still not there, it must be simple enough surely? The amount of time I waste chasing up and down folder trees, starting a C: every time :-(

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

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

Yes, that is the panel I was referring to. These are for manual adjustments regardless of lens profile. These values are the same wether I enable lens correction or not. I have no idea if lens correction were applied, or my lens detected correctly.

I'm looking for something like this, or at a minimum some indication that the lens was recognised and adjusted:


 
 

And how many Designers do you think that would be using Linux?
One of the biggest issues with using Affinity stuff compared to Adobe is compatibility with industry standards. Things like Photoshop Smart objects, the fact some items are vectorised on output, some not, SVG issues and so on. Imagine how much worse it would be going from Linux to industry standards. Nearly all the customers will likely be running MS Office on PCs so you will need to be compatible with that too.
Few professional artworkers/image editors can swap because Affinity software cannot currently run some of the essential plug-ins, like green screen software, specialist separation software etc etc. I prefer Photo to PS and Photo's current limitations don't bother me because of the type of work I do. But I recognize that certain types of 'professional' work would force me to use Photoshop.
On Linux, there will also be lots of other things missing, imposition software etc, although sometimes that can be sorted with PDFs, sometimes not. There are no printer drivers for dye sublimation printers, or not for mine. Using Linux would create just endless hassle trying to sort these things out when you should be concentrating on making money.
Then there is technical support, very few shops sell Linux machines and give support. You have to be a geek just to get a Linux machine running, let alone fix any issues.
From what I can see, Linux users only see their own 'off the grid' world, but reality is the infinitely bigger world of needing to work with and be compatible with Mac and PC users, (we call them customers). That can be tough even when using a PC or a Mac. It would be much tougher using Linux.
So what is left? A few amateur designers designing small jobs for small local companies, churches etc. Maybe a few specialist companies using Linux but they can usually design their own stuff. Then the designs will probably need to be printed, so yet more compatibility problems. Life would be an endless struggle, so eventually you would need to run PCs too, so what's the point? 
A common quote for the most important thing about property or shops, is "location, location, location". When it comes to customers, you have to be in the right location, which is where the customers are, and they are in the Windows world, mostly! It's no good being smug because you think your pet operating system is better. In fact telling your Windows customers will only pee them off.
Microsoft is in the position it is because schools, businesses and every shop sells it and is familiar with it.  Better the devil you know and all that, but it is reality. We all need to face reality sooner or later.
 

While others find logical this kind of save/save as/export workflow, I found annoying and slows down my workflow significantly.
- Export doesn't follow the opened file's directory. What? Opening 10 tiff files from 10 different directories and saving as jpeg needs way more clicks and browsings. Do we need this?
- Open a layered file and save as jpeg. Me and 99% of the users are completely aware of the fact that jpeg has no layers. That is why a layered file is saved to a jpeg.
- Many times I simply don't want to save my work in the native file format. No other software is reading those files. Saving a tiff is good enough, maintains the layers and other software reads the composite tag (flattened version of the image). Instead, exporting to a tiff keeps the work being unsaved, because - it was exported.
 
The open/save of a software is quite important. Regardless of how good is the app, the actual Save/Save as method renders impossible to work daily with hundreds of files spread across multiple folders.

Hi,
I wrote a similar topic last week, it's illogical and slows down your work process.
How many time has anyone here gone to "Save As", located a path to save, then pressed the pointless dropdown menu at the botom of the file dialogue to find only one option, Affinity's native format.
Then you have to go back and start all over again and choose "Export" instead.
The Affinity brand is popular to those that can't afford an Adobe subscription, but no other software can read its file proprietary format. Archiving work in Affinity Photo's native format is disastrous for future purposes currently.
It just feels like Serif is forcing its own branded file format onto the user when it's users are being treated as dumb that they don't know the difference between a destruction format and a re-editable one. Affinity Photo is aimed at professional/semi users who do know what they are doing.
It's these small and simple things that Serif are so fixed on, that prevents Affinity competing with Photoshop - which is the point, isn't it?
 

There's always going to be those that disagree, but one thing that must be considered is the millions of people across the globe that use Photoshop.
I've never heard anyone complain about how Photoshop do "Save As". It doesn't confuse anyone.
Gimp on the other hand that uses the same concept as Affinity Photo has mountains of post for many many many years regarding having to use "Export" instead of "Save As".
Plus if you wish to atract long time Photoshop users, then sticking to common methods of workflow is important.
I've used Photoshop for 25 years and it erks me no end that something that is so standardised in other software, for some reason Serif has to break all the rules, for what? What does it achieve?
 
 

Wrong. Very wrong. If you think there is no difference, then you are using PS for one file per day? Or as a professional, working with 100+ files a day?
 
PS way:
Open a JPEG photo. Make changes (crop, retouch, resize, etc.) and then save the work in progress to a lossless format, like PNG or TIFF. Hit Save as, chose PNG/TIFF and continue working until finished. No layers, text, just the plain image. Close, hit Save when asked - do the same 100 times.
 
AP way:
- Export to PNG - involves finding the original JPG's directory
- The Save command is still unavailable so further saves aren't possible, only exporting, which keeps asking if I overwrite the PNG
- So close the original JPEG file and find the exported PNG, open it, but this way you lose all the undo states
 
I'm a software developer also, I studied and had feedback on the so called "User experience" an "Usability" topics, not from one user, not from 10...

I can't count how many times I've opened a bitmap not on my normal filesystem (someone iMessaged it, I dragged it from a browser, I pasted it, etc) and went to crop it, resize it, or do some other light editing work and then, when the time came to save it, I was unable to save it on my desktop because Save As forces me to convert it to an Affinity Photo document.
 
Or I've opened various bitmaps with the intent of creating some type of simple composite image… even if I flatten it, I can't save it as a bitmap anymore.
 
A lot of the work we do involves some tedious temporary image editing tasks that we have no desire to keep a master document behind. We're just converting something into something else and moving on.
 
With other software titles throughout history, Save As let you save this modified final output file and never look back.  Affinity Photo doesn't let you do this. Instead you have to export. Which is a tedious effort compared to Save As. Not only that, but after you make your export, you have to discard your master document.
 
Life was so much more streamlined when you'd open the bitmaps, edit, flatten, Save As, quit. Boom. Your final output is where you want it and you have no detritus to manage.

Just adding to the chorus. I get the logic of Affinty Photo's save vs export but it's WAY LESS CONVENIENT than Photoshop's workflow.
 
In Photoshop. Save As, pick jpg, then edit, Ctrl-S, edit, Ctrl-S, edit, Ctrl-S
 
In Affinity Photo I always have to go through the export path which is really distracting. Affinity tries to pride itself on being better than Photoshop in many ways. This is one where it's worse. Here's hoping they'll consider changing it.
 
Photoshop does warn you if you've got a multi-layer file that saving to a non.PSD will lose data. But if you have a single layer file it just works for jpg and png and a few other formats.
 

The current aproach of File -> Save as is the worst... It's like GIMP's very annoying feature.
 
Save as should allow to save all known formats - JPG, PNG, TIFF, etc.
So there are hundreds of forum posts regarding the save as and export commands, it's still not the best way, instead it's the most annoying ever.
 
Save as should allow the user to save the file in whichever format he wants. When data loss may occur a warning dialog is good enough. By saving a document as means changing the working file name and changing the working file path.
Export should save a file to another place, but the app should not change the working file and the working path.
 
 
Forcing users to do it in a cumbersome way to "save as" their work is highly annoying. Practically Affinity Photo is useless for me right now. Anyway, who uses such a software for professional purposes is completely aware of the file format limitations!
 
Please open any other software and see how it's working:
- "Save" saves the currently opened document. If was not saved before, invokes the "Save as..." dialog.
- "Save As" offers a list of known file formats to save the document. After saving, the file name/path is updated. Here, if the chosen format does not supports all extra data, a warning is enough. After saving the app sould keep all the extra data (layers, etc). After saving, a "file saved flag" should be set to not bug the user upon exiting the app that the file wasnt saved.
- "Export" offers a list of known file formats to save the document. After exporting, the file name/path is NOT updated, the "file saved flag" isn't altered.
The above workflow is the best. Implementing another way only annoys the user and renders the software unusable.

Thanks FD. As I say, I sorted it by turning off Controlled Folders temporarily. There's always at least three ways to do the same thing in Windows :-)
 
Interesting thought that it may be a resource isue rather than a real conflict. I'll read the information at that link you pointed me to. I'm a long time Malwarebytes fan but that other one is new to me, I'll take a look. 
 
I might be putting two and two together and making twenty two, the two and two being; installing 1803 with Controlled Folders and then a failure when installing the AP update. If it was a general problem, install 1803 and you'll get an error when installing any software, I think people would have screamed MS's roof down. It looks like a good idea but a UAC style prompt would be an improvement.   
 
Thanks again, it is fortunate that I have a least a little Windows knowledge and can work my way around it and I know there ar helpful people such as yourself to call upon.
 
John

Installing Windows 10 on a low spec or old system might require a bit of tweaking with services to minimise impact of resources: http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-10-service-configurations/
 
I've used this info in the past to help old chuggaboom laptops gain a bit of resource.

VSSVC is part of the windows backup system (Volume Shadow Copy) it can be temporarily disabled as a workaround.
 
Type, services.msc in Start search box and hit Enter to open the Windows Services Manager. Locate Volume Shadow Copy Service, and then double-click on it to open its Properties box. Stop the Service and then Start it again. Or else right-click on it and select Restart.

If this does not help, then as a temporary measure, you could Stop this Service if it is interfering with your work.
You may also use the Task Manager to end this Task.
 
I reckon it's C:\Windows\System32\VSSVC.exe
Correct.
 
Just for safety I'd run a scan with Malwarebytes and ADW
 
Shadow copies can be important as in the spate of Encryption Ransomware, I've gotten many a file back accessing the shadow copies: https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/shadow_copy_view.html very useful tool save it onto a USB stick and hope you never have to use it 

Personally I would prefer a quality printed book / manual to a PDF. PDF is fine as an accompaniment, but not as a sole source of info.

I saw a sign a few years ago "Buy one, get one". Yorkshire of course, where else? And before the pc, taking offence by proxy brigade jump in, I'm a Yorkshireman.
 
When it's out of beta I'm happy to pay £39.99 for AP. Or £49.99. Or £59.99. Or....
 
As I have posted elsewhere Photoshop, back when you could buy it, was six hundred pounds, or thereabouts. Now maybe AP isn't there quite yet but it's heading in the right direction. Who are all of these skinflints?
 
John