Jump to content

hifred

Members
  • Content Count

    398
  • Joined

Posts posted by hifred


  1. 2 hours ago, James Ritson said:

    Brush modifier (keyboard and mouse)

    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. 9 hours ago, nezumi said:

    Of course you claiming that "you knew without even trying" wasn't silly at all.

    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. 2 hours ago, nezumi said:

    Would adding "partial" to the support of Smart Objects help?

    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.

    2 hours ago, nezumi said:

    I mean is there any instance that it actually works?

    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.


  4. @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.


  5.  

    12 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

    @hifred

    Thanks for the kind words. Could you copy and paste (or move) the rest of your post to a new forum post as suggested

    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.


  6.  

    12 hours ago, Patrick Connor said:

    PSD smart object support – any smart objects included in PSD files can now be imported into Affinity Photo as embedded documents [enable in preferences], letting you easily edit layers within any smart object and maintain a non-destructive workflow into Affinity.

    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.

     


  7. 10 hours ago, fde101 said:

    You are complaining that grayscale icons look... gray?

    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

    2019-06-22_13h24_52.jpg.dca26616903a62052d40789b718156d4.jpg


  8. 35 minutes ago, Pen Surfer said:

    You obviously have ego issues my friend.  I'm really not sure why are you constantly seeing a conflict when there's none, accusing me of being angry. I'm starting to question, am I speaking to a grown man? There's no conflict on my part. Clearly your ego is not allowing you to think straight. That's why you are trying to defend and justify bugs, something that is not working properly.

    I would greatly appreciate if you stuck to the topic. Public assumptions on motivation and mental state of fellow users are not helpful.


  9. 21 hours ago, Pen Surfer said:

    My first experience on this forum was quite weird if I'm being honest. Users pretending that they don't understand the issue, while saying that actually is working, which is far from the truth. Or suggesting to use Cintiq, I mean, that's for the biggest facepalm ever.

    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.

     


  10. 1 hour ago, toutou123 said:

    What I meant is that the software opens always on the publisher persona, if you go the designer persona, you'll that you're the designer persona because you have chosen it. 

    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.


  11. 1 hour ago, toutou123 said:

    Does the color really matter to know which person or tool you are using at any moment? 

    Colour or any way to clearly distinguish these buttons was absolutely necessary, yes. While Photo's GUI differs considerably from Publisher, it's s lot harder to tell that one is in Designer. Also, as Walt pointed out it's hard to see which of the Icons is pressed - just look at my screenshot.


  12. 2 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

    However, displaying them in color is sure to draw complaints from someone that Affinity ignored their preference for monochromatic icons, so that may not be the best solution to this problem :)

    Hehe, I'm already pretty hardcore in that respect: I really do not like looking at multicoloured buttons and close needless toolbars anyway, whenever possible. But in this case I would call an exception justified: These buttons are pretty important, they form a group and they as abstract artworks are pretty much indistinguishable in greyscale. If one stuck to greyscale one needed additional text or differently shaped icons.


  13. I have just begun testing the integration of Designer and Photo (a nice surprise indeed!) with Publisher with Preferences/User Interface/ Monochromatic Iconography checked. While I greatly prefer greyscale icons, this option does not work well with the buttons for Photo and Designer. On initial startup the integration buttons appear greyed out, as one first needs to run Photo and Designer and accept the license. But even after having done this, the alternative "Personas" seemingly remain greyed out. Right now, with greyscale icons active it's really hard to spot which persona is active. One either needed App Icons which in greyscale looked very different from each other or – and that's likely the most straightforward solution – one should show these three important icons in colour.

     

    2019-06-20_16h04_17.jpg.461098f235dd25246c8faff2c77f9689.jpg

    All apps a correctly linked but they still look greyed out. It's hard to spot that the Publisher-Persona is active. As its GUI is extremely similar to Designer one needs a clear visual identifier.


  14. I suggest you to read a few more of my posts / threads. Having done hat I would be surprised if you still called me defensive of stuff that doesn't work. In fact, I still don't use any of the programs of the Affinity-Suite in production, as I consider them not got and not fast enough for what I want to do.

    That being said, I want to give precise and constructive feedback to developers, so that they can identify and fix problems. There's nothing wrong with the statements in my first reply to you - let's please no longer waste time and move on.


  15. 1 hour ago, Pen Surfer said:

    I've read the OP again and I can't find where he's talking about Cintiq.

    Ok, you're correct. I had in mind that it was the OP who first brought up the Cintiq, but later posters mention this device, before I did. Apart from that I have no idea what could have caused your anger. Also I still don't know exactly what you mean. If you prefer the GUI and speed available in Photoshop I am with you – as I already wrote earlier.


  16. 20 minutes ago, Pen Surfer said:

    I really don't want to be rude, but dude, you are suggesting for us to spend money on Cintiq so we can precisely color pick while painting.

    I can't follow. The OP referred to Cintiq behavior in the intial post. And he asked for picking with the ALT-Key and nothing else. It turned out that this sort of sampling works on Cintiqs (but with any other supported input device tooI).

    32 minutes ago, Pen Surfer said:

    Kidding aside, I'm aware that you can color pick with simply pressing ALT, but it is not intuitive and user friendly

    If you don't like this implementation you should first describe what you're missing.


  17. 1 hour ago, fde101 said:

    Image layers in Publisher can be embedded or linked, and they preserve many of the details of the original files.  Many people prefer to link their images instead of embedding them, but that is not possible with pixel layers.  Image layers also support a "non-destructive" workflow and allow re-developing RAW data in Photo when working with RAW images.

    Pixel layers are more like the layers in Photoshop or other traditional photo programs.  They contain a copy of the raster image data in a format that can be edited.  They lose the connection back to the original file.

    Photoshop has a similar concept to Image Layers and one may also link or embed files. One still may create selections, duplicate portions or sample colours from this sort of content. The Image Layer implementation is a needless trap as partial rasterization could take place on the fly.


  18. 3 hours ago, Pen Surfer said:

    It's a shame that such an important feature is missing.

    The originally requested feature is not missing. One can sample colours by pressing ALT with the Brush tool active, also with Cintiqs. No need either, to switch tools first. But Affinity Photo gives less feedback than Photoshop and the colour sampler feels slow.


  19. Could someone from staff please extract the remaining feature requests? While the title is misleading (ALT+Picking works on Cintiq) there's some valid concerns:

    • Feedback is poor (no cursor change when pressing ALT with the brush tool active.
    • Too slow initialization of the magnifying glass
    • Needless tool-decoration (instead of colour judgment-helpers)
×
×
  • 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.