Alex_Poulsen

If it doesn't work for you, my recommendation would be Pixen (Free, lots of good pixel art specific tools) or Pixelmator ($30, but quite worth it, also much more like AP than AD)

So most (all) gradients are even transitions along a 1d line. AD does 2d, so why not 2d gradients. This is in two parts. One) every gradient would have a "Distort Mode", distort mode brings up a grid of handles, rotated to the direction of the gradient and radial etc. for the respective gradient. These can be moved, distorting the gradient. This would be basically a special implementation of the second part; 2D gradients) each 2d gradient would be a assortment of points, each with controllable spread, hsl, and shape. Spread is the distance, think a gaussian function, squished or squashed. HSL is obvious, color controllable with any of the already implemented options. Shape is the shape (no duh), by default a circle, but a star (long points extending from a circle), square, ellipse, or custom could be chosen. Inspired by Logoist 2's lightmap feature (also a good idea to implement), blurred stuff, low-poly stuff.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-computers-have-trouble-with-blending-colors I read this article, and think Affinity (all of them) need a more accurate blur, square brightness, average (or whatever else), then square root brightness. Simple compared to the other things, like photo's inpainting tool. (If you are really curious, the other layer in the screenshot is a picture of a pine marten)