Jump to content

hifred

Members
  • Content Count

    398
  • Joined

About hifred

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

1,645 profile views
  1. Thanks for your always very well-made videos! These additions are a good idea – but they (like already the older interactive brush controls) are all hooked up with a 100% mouse input centric mindset. I just tried the feature out with a Cintiq 27 pen display. Only by trying several times in a row, I managed to at all enter the advanced stroke controls. It requires me to hold Alt, touch the glass (LMB) and at the same time hold down a key (RMB) on my pen and to hope, that everything registers. After that I was practically locked inside pen rotation mode. It might somehow be possible to map some keyboard-button or one of the precious brush keys to RMB and LMB pressed at the same time. Then again I know that this can get done better and it's demonstrated in various other graphics applications I use. You guys are completely missing out by not supporting all features of the Wacom driver properly... Having to actually touch the screen with the brush (→ LMB) in order to change its width, falloff or anything else feels just awfully wrong: Imagine you were standing in front of an easel, had a broad colour-loaded brush in your hand and you want to switch over to a small brush. What Affinity apps require you to do is press that fat brush onto the canvas while pressing your ear lobe and hoping for the best. When everything works well and all events register, the fat brush doesn't leave any traces, but transforms to the desired small brush. This really all would not have to happen, if you supported Hover-Click, as – sorry – everyone else. This option lets you change all demonstrated brush properties, while hovering over the display / tablet. Hover-Click is pretty close to a analog mixing palette. Nearby, offers all options, but no danger involved – as some safety-distance is kept. I sure wrote 3 feature requests on how interactive brush manipulation could get enhanced. Realizing that nobody reads this and takes a note – and seeing that developer resources are wasted to create further implementations that are foreseeably useless with the best input devices in the market is not particularly attractive.
  2. Here is what I disliked about your post. I criticized repeated, demonstrably wrong marketing promises by Serif. You keep talking these false announcements down and ridicule the criticism ('he he, actually not too bad with brand-new hardware – just imagine how the software would fly with Hardware Acceleration'). And you are also bold enough to start criticizing me and my judgement. You effectively try turning things around and to totally side-track the discussion. That's a discourse method I generally don't accept. And yes – your statement, that intimate code insight is required to judge whether Affinity can fully support Smart Objects remains nonsensical. I won't start explaining – but you might read my first post again and ask yourself why I picked these two samples. [Edit: Now I see that you even draw (here utterly irrelevant) Adobe marketing in. You might consider a career as a political advisor – you're good at this.]
  3. I wanted to milden my harshness with a dash of hope for accident But you are right: Such shouldn't happen. And surly not twice.
  4. This sure would appear more honest. All image editors who have somewhat decent Photoshop background know right away that this promise is wrong – I at least knew, without even trying. Considering the size of the Photoshop user-base this should be quite a few advanced users (easily 6 or 7 digits) who know, that what they just read is merely hollow marketing blurb. I have even checked "vastly improved 1.7 performance on Windows" (wrong) and also tried 1.8 support for all Smart Objects"(wrong too). While I sympathized with Affinity from day one, I can not deny that such experiences do impact my inclination to try things out a third time (although I'm a licensed customer). What Affinity marketing does seems totally detached from what sane developers, who without any doubt do work at Serif would state. It's rather marketing folks (who obviously have no idea what they are saying) that drive advanced users away. Yes. I did not do a lot of tests, but Smart Objects which were created as an encapsulated sub-set of a file seem to work. Any Smart Objects that encapsulate non Photoshop-native data seem to get disregarded. I could not try if Smart Objects that contain externally referenced files do work, as my CS6 doesn't support this yet. Someone with CC had to test this.
  5. That is at least pretty much what Affinity Marketing (wrongly) implied they did, in terms of the Smart Objects feature.
  6. @Patrick Connor I have no idea why this was necessary. I gave feedback on 1.8 and didn't report bugs. It was good if you at least placed a link to this split out thread.
  7. @walt.farrellJust to confirm: I have read the announcement and clicked the Smart Object tickbox in Settings. I have also read the more cautious statement near the checkbox. I imported two sample files with Smart Objects 1.8 could not handle altogether and there will likely be more. I also figured out that a simple Fill Layer from PS got rasterized... For me as a customer who has bought all three products but doesn't use them it happened for the second time in relative short sequence that widely published marketing announcements were made, which simply aren't accurate. Version 1.7x should bring a performance breakthrough on Windows, but in reality the program still doesn't use the Video card and a lot of long standing performance-bottlenecks I experienced (and reported) remained in place. Now I got a victim of a clickbait again (I read the 'universal Smart Objects support' announcement in a German magazine) and I found out equally quickly, that statements made aren't accurate. I am not criticizing the programmers, but rather the marketing department. On should be very cautious with announcements that don't hold water. It's just silly. The suite is a great success, one should not endanger the project with invalid promises.
  8. I do not consider my comment a bug report. I reported two completely unsupported forms of Smart Objects. Supporting embedded RAW in Smart Objects in my understanding is fundamentally incompatible with the way Affinity Photo works right now.
  9. This looks like an interesting update and I applaud the effort to support Smart Objects! The above statement seems unnecessarily bold though and is easily proved wrong. Smart objects can appear in such manifold ways: Pixel content, Vectors, RAW files, embedded and linked – it's extremely easy to miss some cases. I have quickly tested two files, created with Photoshop CS6. Both failed. A simple file with a fill layer and vector content from illustrator as the smart object. The Photoshop fill layer got rasterized, the Vector content as well. Vectors were actually the type of Smart Object I had reckoned to cause relatively little issues to support – as Affinity Photo supports Vectors natively (in contrast to PS that needs strictly needs the container format). A .psd with an embedded RAW that lives inside this file, along with its development settings. Using PS one may re-enter the RAW development and can from here reset the RAW to the unprocessed state and save out a .dng (one therefore as a PS-user may savely discard the source RAW-file as saved by the camera. When I open this file in Affinity 1.8 I get a silly pixel image. The import is 100% destructive.
  10. Yes, I do :o). And I even think that's reasonable. These Application Icons do differ a lot from Tool Icons which have – well – "iconic", recognizable qualities. The Application icons are very abstract, have little greyscale contrast and in this state offer zero readabilty.The brush or crop icon is equally readable in colour and in greyscale (I would even say that greyscale is better). Not only that: Even when selected, one may not see which of the "Personas" is currently active. Unrelated: There's btw. still icons which do display in colour with Greyscale Iconography checked. Likely an oversight? @MEB
  11. I would greatly appreciate if you stuck to the topic. Public assumptions on motivation and mental state of fellow users are not helpful.
  12. Please behave. I spent considerable effort to explain, that the behaviours you are looking for are mostly implemented and only need detail-refinement. As badly as you seem to miss an Icon-change, while Alt clicking the canvas and an alternative GUI for the picker itself* – the base features are already there. Several other users pointed out the same after I left the discussion. I hate wasting time and can assure you that I did not pretend anything. I sincerely tried to figure out vital further aspects of colour picking you were missing – but you kept repeating the same imprecise 'make it as good as in Photoshop, dam it' statement throughout this thread. Unfortunately this is nothing Developers can work with. I brought up the Cintiq, as other users had mentioned the device earlier. As I use a Cintiq too, I could confirm that Alt-colour-picking works here. I never suggested you to buy one. * no disagreement here – I wrote this myself, before you enterered the discussion.
  13. Yeah, but it's already hard to do that deliberate pick of Designer, as all icons look similar in greyscale. Also imagine work pauses - one always needs to know instantly where one is, without having to memorize things.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.