Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Everything posted by hifred

  1. I agree. Immediate feedback on pressing the ALT Modifier is badly missing. As the cursor doesn't change to a colour picker there's no way to understand that the mode-change has registered. One needs to start sampling to have that magnifying glass appear: But also here the feedback is poor, as it easily takes half a second or more, until the Loupe finally shows up. One nearly can feel the program think: "Hang on – the user has pressed ALT and now even keeps LMB held down – what was it again what I'm supposed to show? While speeding up that widget one might consider removing that distracting bevel-effect from the picker. Giving the user a picker-experience which lets users judge the just sampled colour sure was more helpful than skeuomorphism. That's how things look in Photoshop CS6.
  2. We users are in neither of these roles. Not in the role to mull over Serifs business strategy and possible complications, caused by some decision or another. Not in the role to patronize fellow users either – on what adequate expectations might look like. There's also zero point in building an argumentation based on the price point Serif has chosen. That's again entirely "their beer" (up to them) as we say in German. I would gladly pay considerably more for a suite of tools on a perpetual license, which is on par performance-wise with Adobe's offering. As a matter of fact work on the DAM has already begun and it should be helpful for Serif to get feedback. I understand that you don't consider a DAM important – that is perfectly fine. I personally can state that I wasn't willing to use an otherwisely highly mature Affinity Photo 3.0 in 2025 if it still dealed with RAWs in the same the way it does today.
  3. Ok, I have to admit that this is better than nothing (also available on Windows). Still it's certainly not where I would search first – admittedly biased from my Indesign background (which doesn't give individual objects layers but uses Layers as folders for similar stuff). For me text is primarily text and I would look in its associated options, in order to turn it to dumb vectors.
  4. @Mark Ingram ,all Devs. Yes, that is the real question. Why does one make it up to the user to activate an arbitrarily chosen workmode to get access to Text to Curves Tool? It's bloodcurdling not to have Text to Curves in the Menu / the RMB-Menu of the Text tool but having to change to the Move tool. Left: Publisher, Right Indesign. Yes, it generally makes sense to offer context-adapted toolsets. But one has clearly overdone things when one forces users to memorize and obey programmer determined artificial editing sequences which have no practical foundation: Just in order to get access to certain tools.
  5. Hi @Mark Ingram Here I have piled up and explained a few other UX issues. They all, without a question fall into the "changing the default behaviour of the application is a thing which we rarely want to do" realm :o) It took some time to collect and maybe you find some of this not too foolish after all... I'd be happy if you / the UX guys had a look, before the the thread gets burried in this ever growing feature-requests-thread.
  6. I meant: Please refrain from private judgment on fellow users attitude and from assumptions, how statements might come across.
  7. I can not know. You have no evidence of the opposite either. We only know three letters, which can mean quite different things. Please do refrain from further private judgment.
  8. The mentioned products are only tools to browse and sort images, but are also called DAM, yes. It also to me would make zero sense that Serif spend development time on a tool which is limited to these tasks. Many DAMs however include a RAW development module which allows for editing large amounts of RAWs at a speed and flexibility that is unthinkable with the principle currently used in the Develop Persona - think factor 100 faster. If one uses such a tool and wants to further edit developed images with a classic layer based program later, one needs colour management - the integration Adobe offers with Photoshop is quite attractive indeed. I think we all would profit, if Serif told us, what sort of program they actually plan to release - most of the users at least, who voted in my little poll don't only want a browser.
  9. Hi @SrPx I feel kind of bad that you spent time to write all this down. Honestly, I have a hard time sift through your (usually pretty long) posts and often give up soon. Where do you pick up what has been discussed, what's random scattered opinion /senior artist advice and chit chat? All hard to identify. Your posts seem to me like a stream of conciousness, as if you spoke freely into your phone and pressed the Send button. At any rate I didn't address you with my posts :o)
  10. I do understand this notion - however we are still looking at the 1.x version, right :o) Even Photoshop in version xx changed how Ctrl+Z works, quite recently... Of all those users who don't post in the forums - what scenario would you consider more likely: Relatively inexperienced users running into what happened to Patricia (neither being aware of the cause, nor of the recently introduced fix in Preferences). Or experienced users who use a lot of keyboard shortcuts and even like the concept of stacked hotkeys - who at the same time get just mad about little behaviour change, which they may get rid of with one little checkmark in Preferences? My personal preference is that software makers remain open for change - even on long established conventions :o)
  11. In contrast to you I am convinced that one could tell us quite a bit more. Not customer support staff, but management. You can't prove me wrong, neither can I do the opposite. But there's certainly nothing wrong with expressing a wish. The only thing which doesn't make sense are quarrels of this nature and fellow customers trying to speak for a brand.
  12. @BSA650 A lot of people have claimed that Afffinty looks very interesting, but that they could really do the switch until there's a DTP program. There's other users who won't be able to establish an attractive workflow, when their Graphics Suite doesn't support efficient handling and editing of RAW imagery. I actually belong to both of these groups. Unfortunately the term DAM, in contrast to term DTP-program is extremely lose. It is used for simple image viewers and sorters like Irfan View and for highly sophisticated databases for millions of images. Programs with extensive RAW editing toolsets are called DAM in the same way as tools which cater for no editing at all. All I can recall stated by Serif is that 'someone is working on a DAM', another statement was along the lines of 'yeah, we will likely add a little app to let our customers sort their assets'.That's all we know – and all I have stated that it would help, if they explained their plans some more. Serifs starting conditions should not be too shabby. Sales seem to work out well, Serif has already had a DAM in their portfolio and they already have a functional set of RAW processing tools. You guys are correct that one should not have unrealistic expectatation. I don't think I have them – and I can get my work done elsewhere. Nobody is asking for an ETA. But more info would help. If only business / workflow considerations mattered I would have become CC customer, as soon as it became available. But I have a few princple left. One of them is, that I won't spend money on content creation programs which no longer give access to your intellectual property, as soon as one lets the contract run out. Luckily I still own what I consider a very close second best option, that's Adobe's last perpetual suite. However it's more than half a decade old and it was silly not to check out possible successors. This successor could be the Affinity Suite, but it should not offer considerably less, than what I have now. I hope this so far is understandable. Realistically there's not even a good route to temporarilly switch to CC, until one possibly considers the Affinity apps mature enough to finally leave Adobe. One in these years will have created a lot of content, which other apps can not deal with at all, or only at superficial level. Understandably, after dropping a CC-subsciption, older CS6 versions will have troubles reading CC-content – given that one at all can at all re-activate the old license. Replacing a suite of programs with an array of standalone applications may turn out very powerful alternative for some users – but it usually requires quite a bit of dedication to make them work together properly. As graphics is not my main job, I want things set up a bit more comfortable.
  13. I don't know if you have ever programmed. One needs to be able to describe the overall task quite in detail before even starting –in the same way a cabinet maker needs to know all details of a planned cupboard, before even cutting the first piece of wood.
  14. I did not ask how long it will take. I want to know more about their plans, so that I can plan.
  15. I hadn't chimed in, if hadn't read the opposite stated by Serif staff, just recently: 'I'm standing next to the guy who's writing the DAM'. I can't remember where and by whom though.
  16. Photoshop has the same RAW editing capabilies as Lightroom. Since 2003. But that's not even the question here.
  17. I can understand your perspective as member of the Customer Support team and I get that these threads popping up again and again might get tiresome. That being said: It would be kind, not to underestimate the problem Adobe's change of licensing model has caused to a lot of people in the graphics industry. Speaking of myself I have already spent / wasted countless hours, checking out possible alternatives for Adobe and – thus far – can say that nothing comes even close to what I'm used to, in terms of workflow integration and performance. From a lot of posts in these forums one can gather that others are in a similar situation and that they have also spent their time to check out a variety of options. For me and for others, a decent RAW-workflow implementation was absolutely mandatory for sticking with Affintity. If you reveal in a years time that you only will create a modest Image Browser and will stick to One by One RAW Editing I had to conclude that I have again wasted a considerable amount of my time. As you guys announced Publisher there was a lot of interest too but – by far – not as many question marks. Anyone knows what a DTP program is. The definition of a DAM however, isn't clear at all. We are all paying customers – it would be tremendously helpful to aid us plan – by telling us as much as you can. This doesn't have to be you, we would also accept @Mark Ingram :o) or whoever is the person in charge. If the forum is the wrong place, then write a Newsletter: But please spill the beans.
  18. This one deviates a little from previous reports, but as one inside Affinity Photo doesn't get a visual in the image or indicated in the Layer-Editor / Status-bar info about resolution-headroom I think this is a UX flaw as well. When I place an high res image (i took a huuuge 42MP jpg) as an Image-Layer into small APhoto document I get a preview, which quite obviously shows at greatly reduced resolution on screen. As soon as the document Zoom Level exceeds 100%, one runs into pixelation. With the document open one therefore has no way to judge the true quality of the placed image. This is a crop from a huge image – but it appears in poor quality in Affinity Photo. The user gets not even a readout somewhere, which informs about its actual quality. What I found most user-friendly /wysiwyg in this situation would be screen-rendering which reveals the actual resolution of each element in a composition. Vector elements and text should render crisp at any magnification level, as it is the case in Affinity Designer + Publisher. Images with low resolution should show their limits sooner, while high res images remain crisp, even at higher zoom levels. There may be good technical reasons which do forbid hooking things up that way, but I wonder what these are... The very unfortunate effect of the current method is that one with placed images in compositions (and generally when working with text and vectors in Affinity Photo) only can evaluate the final quality level in the exported image. That seems very wrong to me, conceptually. Ironically both non image-specialized Affinity programs (AD, AP) do display placed images at full resolution (obviously text and vectors too). AD has no problems with full res images in the Pixel-Persona too... Should there really be absolutely no way around using the current screen rendering methods inside Affinity Photo (which I heavily doubt and loved getting an explanation for) the absolute least that should happen was, that one was given some clear indicators, that one is not looking at the final quality level. Photoshop, in my very old CS6 version doesn't excel in this respect either* – the placed image appears at low resolution too. But one can doubleclick the image (Smart Object) in the Layer stack, to open it at full resolution in a new tab. That way one can at least make sure, that one is working on the correct file. Xara always displays the resolution at the current scale in the document, which also helps. Interactive display of placed content's resolution in Xara's Layer stack *that may have changed in the meantime
  19. And yet another one in (APhoto) Fill Layers ➜ see also here Create a Fill Layer, fill with any solid colour Select the Fill Layer Pick the Brush Tool and start painting, to create a mask Now try to change the colour of the Fill Layer The operation fails, as Aphoto, with the Brush tool active assumes that one wants to change the colour of the brush. Users at that point will very likely believe that the fill layer had gotten rasterized and that one no longer can interactively change its colour. Indeed the Fill Layer remained intact – one 'only' needs to change the active tool to any other tool which doesn't paint and therefore has no colourpicker hooked up. What's bad about this? You leave it up to the user to unnecessary deeply analyze the work scenario and to deliberately establish matching conditions for the Fill Layer colour-change to work. Photoshop demonstrates how such situations may get avoided, by Design. To change the colour of the Fill Layer the user has to explicidly address a colour swatch inside the Fill-Layer. This may happen with any tool active. The user disambiguates, without having to think – how nice.
  20. @Mark IngramThe actual reason also here (in Designer) is very likely an accidental tool-change by pressing the B-key twice. I suggest implementing the Shift-protection for accidental tool change suite wide. Further, I think you should consider inverting the default behaviour – one should have to check a box if one dislikes having to press Shift. I doubt that you will find a lot of users who will freak out. The OP didn't even want to use the tool cycle mechanism – obviously she wasn't even aware of that option: Patricia only wanted to pick a tool – the fact that it was already active before her tea break made the operation fail. Please have someone analyze such error patterns. One only needs to read this forum regularly and runs into them, pretty much on a daily basis.
  21. On the previously discussed issue, whether Affinity Photo is actively marketed as a replacement for Photoshop, just one more observation: I have to admit that I did not book Youtube ads yet – but I did so in a variety of other social channels. Here one can usually narrow down very closely the desired audience and also bid for relevant search keywords. As a Youtube user and as a person who still uses Photoshop for all his image-editing I search pretty regularly for terms like 'Photoshop + problem I want to solve'. I can not recall searching for Affinity videos. Interestingly I'm getting lots of Youtube ads for Affinity-Photo shown. This, judging from my background in other ad channels should only happen, when one actively bids for the the search-term 'Photoshop'. So, while one might avoid some explicid wording, I think it's fair to say that Serifs marketing department quite aggressively targets Photoshop-users. They were idiots if they didn't :o)
  22. This is not a valid argument as the chosen price point was entirely up to Serif. I would pay as much for the Affinity Suite as I paid for the small Adobe Design Standard Suite (even without getting Acrobat), if it offered equal value. My sole reason for looking into alternatives for Adobe apps - which I enjoy using - is that I find renting content creation software unacceptable.
  23. Thanks for letting me know Gabriel. External editing of embedded docs would also be extremely useful for those, who prefer using 3rd party tools to edit their RAW files. One would win a lot when Affinity Photo displayed processed RAWs as embedded documents, for compositing with other content and let us jump to 3rd party tools for further tweaking. In the same way I hope you guys implement re-editing RAWs inside the upcoming Serif-DAM...
  • 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.