Keith Reeder

...Is, I think, a good way to evaluate Photo - I know what results I can achieve in PhotoShop, so let's see what Photo can deliver.
 
It doesn't disappoint!
 

 
Turnstone
 
 

 
Reed bunting
 
 

 
Cormorant
 
 

 
Gannet
 
 

 
Gannet
 
 

 
Turnstone
 
These were all taken back in 2014, on the East Yorkshire coast of England (Canon 70D/Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS and 1.4x or 2x extenders, all hand-held) if anyone's interested.
 
It's on the basis of results like these that I've been happy to replace PhotoShop entirely in my workflow, with Photo: not because I have a problem with Adobe or its subscription pricing - I don't - but because I simply don't need it any more.

...Is, I think, a good way to evaluate Photo - I know what results I can achieve in PhotoShop, so let's see what Photo can deliver.
 
It doesn't disappoint!
 

 
Turnstone
 
 

 
Reed bunting
 
 

 
Cormorant
 
 

 
Gannet
 
 

 
Gannet
 
 

 
Turnstone
 
These were all taken back in 2014, on the East Yorkshire coast of England (Canon 70D/Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS and 1.4x or 2x extenders, all hand-held) if anyone's interested.
 
It's on the basis of results like these that I've been happy to replace PhotoShop entirely in my workflow, with Photo: not because I have a problem with Adobe or its subscription pricing - I don't - but because I simply don't need it any more.

What R-C-R said...
 
What you've done here is broadly equivalent to walking into your doctor's surgery, saying "I don't feel well" and expecting a thorough diagnosis to follow...

XP can only use a maximum of 3gb of RAM - not nearly enough for what most people will use Designer (or Photo, for that matter) for.

HI guys, the is my first work made with AD, normally I use AI (Mac) and CorelDraw (depends on the job).  
vectors only, AD is a nice App!

It's Christmas! They do get time off, you know...

rleche,
 
It would help to know which Affinity app you are using, the specifications of your computer, & the type & file size of the documents you are loading.

Photoshop does all of that - you don't need PS and Lr purely for image editing.

Gets very close though, Patrick - there's nothing in rroddy's list that immediately jumps out as being impossible in Photo.

Photoshop does all of that - you don't need PS and Lr purely for image editing.

http://www.miguelboto.com/affinity/photo/plugins-support/ is the page which leads to the list of plugins tested with and deemed "compatible",  "not compatible" or "untested" with AP for either Windows or MAC.
 
Having just checked this again on my own computer I'd like to draw MEB's attention to the fact that ABSoft's "NeatImage 8" DOES work in AP for Windows, both release and latest beta versions.  I know this is a very popular plugin for the removal of image noise; perhaps would-be purchasers of AP might be somewhat hesitant to commit to the software if they are regular users of NeatImage? 
 
Jeff

Well, plugins either deliver functionality unavailable natively to the software; or they simplify the process of getting a desired end result; or they simply do something better than the host programme can do it.
 
For example: it's certainly true that the Topaz Detail plugin is much better for sharpening my bird pictures than the built-in sharpening tools in Affinity Photo (I would have big problems if the Detail plugin didn't work - although I like the Focus slider in Nik's Sharpener Pro 3 tool as well); and Topaz DeNoise is better at dealing with high ISO noise than Photo's noise reduction (although this is very good itself).
 
The Nik collection provides a unique way of selectively processing images, by use of Control Points - that's a big deal for some users - and some of the tools in the collection certainly make it easier to achieve results: sometimes results you would not even think of trying, using the native tools in Photo: if I made a habit of black and white, I'm sure I'd use Nik's Silver Efex Pro 2 all the time.
 
So in summary, plugins can make life - and getting the pictures you want - easier.

Well, plugins either deliver functionality unavailable natively to the software; or they simplify the process of getting a desired end result; or they simply do something better than the host programme can do it.
 
For example: it's certainly true that the Topaz Detail plugin is much better for sharpening my bird pictures than the built-in sharpening tools in Affinity Photo (I would have big problems if the Detail plugin didn't work - although I like the Focus slider in Nik's Sharpener Pro 3 tool as well); and Topaz DeNoise is better at dealing with high ISO noise than Photo's noise reduction (although this is very good itself).
 
The Nik collection provides a unique way of selectively processing images, by use of Control Points - that's a big deal for some users - and some of the tools in the collection certainly make it easier to achieve results: sometimes results you would not even think of trying, using the native tools in Photo: if I made a habit of black and white, I'm sure I'd use Nik's Silver Efex Pro 2 all the time.
 
So in summary, plugins can make life - and getting the pictures you want - easier.

But it's not the "wrong" thing, Gary: popular usage changes, and anyone who needs to worry about the difference between DPI and PPI knows the difference and should be able to act accordingly.
 
Frankly, this is change for change's sake - it's a pedantic nicety rather than a Real World problem.

Luckily for Affinity, it doesn't sink or swim on your personal opinion...

And yet for many of us, Photo is already a replacement for PhotoShop.
 
Again: your personal opinion does not necessarily reflect that of every other user.

But it's not the "wrong" thing, Gary: popular usage changes, and anyone who needs to worry about the difference between DPI and PPI knows the difference and should be able to act accordingly.
 
Frankly, this is change for change's sake - it's a pedantic nicety rather than a Real World problem.

Edit > Preferences > PhotoShop Plugins, to install them, Gary. 
 
Then (on an active image):
 
Filters > Plugins.

Honestly, we're used to it...
 
 
Only one person has, though...
 
 
I've never seen a single time - and I shudder to think how many pieces of software I've bought over the years - where that has been the case.
 
It simply does not happen

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.

Sorry, this is mostly an opinion... There are tons of tools out there. (not only PS and Fireworks, indeed) . Is your favorite one, I get it, but not necessarily the best.
 
Pretty easy, but yep, faster in Fireworks. On the other hand, doing a pixel art (I mean, a minimalist style, not really game pixel art, tho I''ve very recently done those, too) based, where pixel by pixel, stuff counts, is rather easier and faster in PS or other raster tools.
Besides, maybe you were luckier than me, but in decades, and now, I am requested to do not just front end work and web design, but also design for print (logotypes, needed CMYK mode, color profiles, etc), editing video frames, game UI work, 3D texturing... An all round work horse as versatile and capable as PS (hence my interest in AP) is in the end of the day is way more versatile than Fireworks could ever be. For example, non usable for professional design for printing. But the list is very long.
 
 
Yeah, there are tricks for that, too. Faster in Fireworks , that specific matter, yep. But not all websites require 2.0 rounded corner buttons these days, and am quite ready to use easy tricks to overcome that and not loose the overall power a package like PS has.
 
nah, I started in 98, but worked very intensely all those years till final quarter of 2013, that's not ten years ago, but 3, besides, as a freelance, have kept doing web projects.
Again, there are many ways to achieve stuff, as to say you can do it only with vectors, lol...
 
 
Quite an opinion.
 
 
We'll have to agree to disagree, here. And a few of them (which are surely web designers, like you, without the sarcasm) are probably great designers, BTW.  
Seems that your work is very specific, am happy for you. But when your boss requests from you a rather wider scope of tasks to be done, and denies to purchase more than one graphic suite, Firewoks does not cut it.  The guys providing you PSDs... PSD is a format that is provided to me by my clients in practically every field, included web design. If your boss, as happened to me so many times while worked in ten companies, would request from you to take a PSD template purchased by someone, for a company that didn't work as smart like us, and I did have actually to adapt a PSD template, in virtually *no time*, or skin a blog to make it look 100% seamless with the PS based website (thanks to good pixel accuracy and good, deep CSS knowledge ), well, PS wins there by KO. And again, the list of cases is infinite...
 
Is this tendency of thinking "my tool is the only valid, and every one else should adapt to my workflow" which is an error. I would never have said so about Fireworks, Gimp, Corel, Xara or whatever. Is the designer using it what counts. And to be fair, there's really not many talented out there.

One can change the dpi without resampling. It's just an information field that can, but doesn't have to be, used in calculations.

@Balling
 
Your explanation is clear for the scenario you give. Putting aside for now what we call the thing in the UI of the program, we also have to deal with real world files and the information that other programs expect to be read from and written to the headers, so please humour me.
 
Do you agree that until you chose to place those 3780 by 1890 pixels at 400mm by 200mm the image itself may have an independent value stored in it's metadata that is in many cases wrongly referred to as DPI but has no meaning, because it hasn't been placed. (the source of the confusion for many)
 
Clearly until you chose to place those 3780 by 1890 pixels at a size of 400mm by 200mm it's effective PPI is nominally unknown.
 
An image file itself may be from another source and have a value stored in it's header/metadata of DPI and/or PPI. This PPI and/or DPI value can be overridden/ignored if it is placed at another size, but at least gives a hint as to how it could/should be 'placed', meaning we are treating this stored value to mean it's PPI.
 
I'm curious, if a file has DPI tags and not PPI should we, in your opinion, assume it meant PPI, If it has PPI and DPI tags, should we honour one and not the other for placement, and if so which?
 
I can imagine a scenario where both exist but we read PPI tags and the only one that the user can control in their software is DPI, with all the confusion that would cause
 
In your experience which one does the other software you use honour, in terms of file resolution declaration? Does it honour the PPI tags or the DPI tags when both exist in a file? and what about when only DPI exists, (the most common case).

None of that really answers the question I asked. What practical, real world benefit would there be to changing "DPI" to "PPI" in things like the new document or "Resize Document..." dialog boxes in the Affinity apps?

@Balling, You're technically correct, but it honestly feels like splitting hairs.
 
Every print shop I've worked with request a file at 300dpi... to achieve what they're asking for I create a document at 300ppi in PS/Ai/iD. The term dpi may be used incorrectly here, but in the 15 years I've been in design I've never once had a print shop ask for a file using the correct terminology. Correcting them would probably just make me look like a smug twat.
 
Designers don't have to worry about dpi unless they're the ones printing, but creating a document at 300 ppi or dpi (depending on your design software) is achieving what the print shop is asking for.
 
Kudos to you for learning and using the correct terminology (genuinely, not sarcastically), but changing dpi to ppi in Affinity's UI probably isn't going to make or break anything other than being technically correct.