TanyaMc

I think this all would have went better had I posted a sample .psd file and walked through the process in order to convey why the solutions suggested haven't worked for me. Instead I am going to say thanks close the thread if can.

Thank you for the step by step. Someone else suggested that method as well. But I already have the boxes drawn, they are already layers that exist. But they are images also not rasterized and they have effects applied to them that I also want to copy and paste to the image that is cropped to the shape. If I rasterize the box layers to use to mask the image layers I lose the effects.

Publisher can't do it. I tried Craft Artist hoping for the best of both worlds of publisher and photo plus but it wasn't as intuitive as I hoped. Much as AP is not translating well for me. I am working with templated developed in Photoshop by other designers that worked beautifully in PhotoPlus and the instructions were similar enough that it was simple and easy to acheive desired results. I am going to invest my time either in Craft Artist learning curve (which I am leary of since it seems to be on its way out as well?) or my time and money in PS Elements so I can continue to work on my projects as before. I will have my aspiring photographer daughter take a spin with AP and see if she wants to use it for her straight photo editing projects so it may not be abandoned completely. Thanks.

Thank you. But this is a multilayered project with multiple photos, digital papers, embellishments, etc. I only want to crop, in this current project, one photo layer to a particular size to fit into the rest of the layout appropriately. Appreciate all your replies.

Like I said I didn't save any of the information and it was quite a while ago. My use is hobby related and my time for such things has been minimal. I purchased as soon as I could because I didn't want to lose functionality. But it is all moot, regardless. I will have to find another way to maximize my previous investments in templates, supplies, etc. Thanks for the information. Have a great weekend!

I appreciate that. But as my original post indicates, there is a need for translation/transition for those who have used other things before. Sort of like when a new iPhone or whatnot comes out. If you google 'how do I...' related to something you knew how to do on the old one, you will find that you are not the first to ask etc. and that it is usually not the company (Microsoft is especially bad at it) that is answering the questions or being proactive. As a customer/user, as well as a customer service professional, proactive is the way to be IMO. Thanks for sharing all of your insights. Have a wonderful weekend!

Thank you Walt. That is the kind of information I needed.

Perhaps the best explanation is that I thought I was buying a part for my 1956 car because that is what the materials inferred if not flat out stated I was buying. I don't own a 2019 car and I didn't intend to buy a part for it either.

I wish I had the copies of the emails that talked about the end of the PhotoPlus and companions and the announcements of the new Affinity suites. I am not the only user that was led to believe we would have the same tools only better. I don't think you realize that the relativity is an important part of the learning. There is a translation process from one piece to another. It is also frustrating me to use Apple devices because they have since day 1 back in 1988 been a non-intuitive interface to me, and others as is evidenced by the continued presence of both PC/Android and Mac/Apple users. I need to be able to do what I was able to do before. Best case scenario there would be a resource that would cater to loyal users to aid in the transition/translations. The forums can be an important part of that. And I am thankful for those that are willing to be helpful with the learning and the transition. Thinking out loud can be messy, but for many people it is how we process. Thanks. And if you have suggestions for a software out there that is designed to do the same things as PhP, then I would love to know what it is.

I have a photo that I have drug into AP and it created the layer which I assume is a pixel layer since I can't select/delete the areas. I want to crop the photo to a square or rectangle to match my other photos on the layout which is a larger layer/size of the canvas. Forgive me for being 'dense' about the pixel vs raster issue...If I draw a square (mostly transparent so I can see part of the photo I want to keep? then return to solid to use as a mask?) will it be rasterized automatically or will it be a pixel layer also and require the extra step of rasterizing before using as a mask? Is there a default setting for shapes to create them as pixels or rasters? I don't understand the 'destroying pixels' idea. When you crop a photo aren't you only destroying the pixels that are cropped off?

So please explain how to do that in this case? My shape is a layer/image so should I rasterize it? then drag it onto the other layer? Do I lose my effects when I rasterize? The shape layers have effects applied that I want to copy/paste to the image that replaces that shape. And for the second version, I have a photo that is one of several in the project, and I want to crop it freehand. How do I make a shape/mask for that with precision of a square/rectangle etc?

I have addressed the 'built from scratch' argument in another thread. You actually gave a good reason why rasterizing in order to crop an image is not a good process. Why would I want to lose all those options with my image going forward just to crop it to the size I need? Would not cropping be one of the first steps made prior to filters, etc, etc.? It seems to me that AP is focused on users who are strictly photographers who only deal with one image at a time, based on that feature. I know it is used and have seen examples of it being used differently so I would infer that is not the intention but the design does not match the intention IMO. Please do not be condescending about learning the apps. I have been using Serif products since 2.0 and have learned a lot about various products, methods, etc. Thing is, because of that, I find it extremely frustrating to have to invest an extreme amount of time into 'learning' a new software from the same company that is supposed to do the same things. That is poor design thinking, UX, CX, etc. If I have to invest that much time, I may as well invest more money as well and purchase Adobe products that my aspiring designer daughter will be using in college and learn along side her. I have been trying to teach her with Serif products because of my comfort level, and comittment to the 'brand', including the folks that helped me over the last 20 years with the process. I am hopeful that things will improve but the responses in the forums overall seems to be more indicative that it will not go that way for the original Serif user base.

I get that except that SERIF if the parent company and you have eliminated products yet replaced them at the same time, regardless of how they were made. It's like changing from injection molded parts to 3D printed parts. I still need the part and expect it to do what the original part did. My message, and the message of your user base, is that you have not designed what we expected, wanted, needed, etc. nor have you effectively addressed those things in the software since. I am a UX and CX advocate, and these are the kind of things that do not line up with UX and CX principles. The comments and feedback should be resulting in changes or at the very least documentation that addresses the differences to the potential purchaser/users, especially your loyal user base that has been using your prior products. I have encouraged people to use Serif software over Adobe etc not only because of the price, but because of folks like you, Alfred, who have been wonderful help over the years on various projects. I imagine you could also tout things that Serif can do that Adobe doesn't (and vise versa). All of those things are important to users/customers. And when those are lost, diluted, etc,. then so is your base and therefore your bottom line, especially with the power of referrals, upgrades, etc.

Well, they were created in PhotoPlus to export into Affinity Photo because AP doesn't support it's own parent's file type! So a lot more is lost in the process. And my PSD direct files are from a myriad of years and designers so basically it will be a crap shoot. Guess I'm sticking with PP even though it seems to crash way too much.

Thanks. I understand what you said, but once again, disappointed long time user. I don't understand the reason for the change in basic things nor why you'd want to rasterize.