Tazintosh

Thanks Chris.

Hi folks, On the attached video, you'll find the illustration of the bug described here: Select the Paint Brush Tool Make a —single click— to paint a point Move somewhere else and hold shift ⇧ —Single click— to paint a straight line Repeat steps 2. to 4. to better understand what's going on To make is "work", you have to click —and drag— at step 2. I hope this help. Can't wait to see this one fixed as it's pretty annoying. Thanks for the support. Affinity Straight Brush.mov

Ok, this is weird, this topic is quite old but I do encounter this issue with AD 1.6. Snapping tis behaving completely wrong with such a setting.

Multiple times, Affinity team answered (here or on Twitter) that a DAM was under development… I even had a private discussion on iMessage with a developper where we talked about Aperture and the DAM: Quote: “We’re hoping for 2017 for the DAM app […]” and my answer before ending the discussion: “Please don’t hesitate to keep in touch with xxxxx for the Aperture thingy.” I'm still sticking with Aperture because it's the best DAM + non destructive tool I've been able to test, and I know we are multiple sharing this opinion. As many too, I've put aside all thinking of switching (no way I'm going on Lightroom) because Affinity said they were on it. This is the biggest sad news for my near future workflow…

No need to tell you toltec. You just did on the line above… How can you pretend that your described workflow is non destructive while it's last step makes it even non-editable? I've 100% quit this shit of Photoshop for about two years now. So if I was "thinking" Photoshop, I would be quite weird on my decision making to be productive and live from my work. The described need on this topic has in the end nothing to do with Photoshop itself. Aperture is exactly using the same black & white concept for mask, as well as hundred of app out there, 2D or 3D. There is a reason Affinity also renders it also and B&W. It's an extremely efficient, not old fashioned, and powerful way to work. If you are not concerned by it or don't see it's potential, it's fine. But toltec, I'm trying to understand you here… We would like the mask behaviour to be enhanced, for the good of it. Out of curiosity and rather than arguing against the feature itself, how would —your— work be impacted by a behaviour like the one we want? Because, my small brain is searching for valid reasons, and while a pixel B&W behaviour for masks would insanely help our workflow in Affinity, I don't see how yours would change since your work seems obviously not concerned.

Hi toltec. Sadly, absolutely not. rui_mac & F_J_Woods have nicely explained this on the previous page. The Dodge/Burn feature to work on a mask is an absolute need for any advanced work on compositing etc.

I cannot agree more with the requests made here. The Affinity mask behaviour seems completely wrong to me (and this is hurtful considering how much Affinity Photo or Designer are good). Fixx last comment makes absolute sense. I've also been on my side asking about enhancements: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/41815-mask-gradients-enhancement-highly-needed/ Today (that's the reason of my answer here), I had to outline a people silhouette. I've first used the selection brush + refine to get the main part of it, then created a mask. Obviously, you still have greyed area, like here: In Photoshit, you just have to get the dodge tool, paint, and boom, you're done with a perfect mask. In Affinity Photo, I've lost great time just to figure out the workarounds. • You cannot dodge / burn the mask • You cannot level / curve the mask • You cannot use brush blend mode on the mask • You cannot draw gradient (while keeping previous painting) on mask • You cannot covert the mask to a basic pixel layer so dodge, burn, level, etc. would finally work… These are quite some limitations just for a mask don't you think? You must merge your mask twice (for white + black) before been able to get a black & white layer (or get the pixel selection of the mask and fill a pixel layer) Then you do your work (with NO preview since it's not a mask anymore. Then you rasterize to mask hopping you're adjustments are goods… Guess what if not… you start over the complete thing… it's seriously madness.

Hi MEB. If you set the document background transparent, it's working yes. Still, I'm working with artboards and need a color background to better see what I'm doing. The workaround I found is to create a rectangle to the size of my artboard, that act as a background. Then I uncheck the "Make item visible in export" on the layer panel of the export persona. But such a manipulation reminds me to much of Illustrator where we used to trick all the time… So it's still not a perfect situation and it doesn't looks like the high end level you guys usually provide :/

Hi MEB, • The problem occurs with basics formats like jpeg, png, etc. • When I copy from the Messages screen (tapping+holding + copy), then the paste element is just a text of the filename ​• When I copy from the detail view (tap image + share icon on top right + copy), then nothing is paste (neither by cmd+v on the iPad keyboard, neither using the Pasteboard Menu. Note that from this share icon, importing to Affinity Photo does work, but this creates a new document, thus forcing to copy > switch document > paste

Hi folks, It have been quite some times since my post, and I'm still missing this feature very much. Look at this screenshot. I'm made a three part button but have no way to export the left and right part with transparency. The background is always added.

Nope?

Hi folks, Today is my first day using in a real way (for production) Affinity Photo from my new iPad Pro. My client sent me via iMessage an image I've to work with. By tapping+holding my find on the iMessage image, I've chosen "Copy". Switched back to Affinity, I've pressed cmd+v (or the menu entry) to paste. My surprise (and I've to agree, frustation) was great when I obviously noticed this was not working and the only pasted thing was the filename as pixel layer. Having to first save to camera roll to then open it back on Affinity is contra productive, make syncing (iCloud etc.) occurs for no reason, etc. Am I doing something wrong?

Hey MEB. This is exactly the point of this feature request post ;) Since we can already paint a pixel mask using brushes (including by using opacity), why not simply offering this possibility to the gradient tool (when used on mask)? This tool already support opacity, it's just about supporting it on pixel masks. Also, have you been able to achieve setting up a gradient default for pixel mask other than white>grey?

Hi MEB. Don't get me wrong, as said just before, I know the technic you're are talking about and I accept the workflow you and Sima are proposing. It's a fully valid and argued concept. But right now, I'm talking about the "New Mask Layer". You keep referring to vector masks, initially built from a shape. This is —not— the same as the "New Mask Layer" I'm talking about. And for this exact case ("New Mask Layer", not a vector mask), I would love you to show me how to save gradient's tool defaults… Edit ▸ Defaults ▸ Save is not working in that case and the white to grey is always the default. BTW, still speaking about "New Mask Layer", you guys can see on the following video that I can first create a gradient (pixel, non editable, it's fine), then paint on it with a brush. This is not erasing my previous gradient, I can continue painting as much as I want on this particular mask. But if I use again the gradient tool, it will erase all my previous work! Why having such a different behavior depending the tool? You allow a brush to paint partially over a gradient, but you don't allow the opposite. I simply don't understand this, and I've the deep feeling this cannot be done "by design". Else I'm really curious for the arguments. PaintOnMask.mov

Thank you both for your answer. :) I indeed know this technics, and I also perfectly understand the benefits of keeping stuffs editable. Anyway, this choice should be given to the user (parametric gradient or "pixel gradient" that would act exactly like I described, in an extremely fast way. Users could then decide depending the need. Anyway, I've noticed how you (Sima) workaround this extremely irritating —mask— issue where the gradient is NOT editable at the moment you deselect (sorry MEB) and settings are —always— set back to white/grey. What you did is simply impossible with masks (I mean, it would take 10x the time —considering the actual methods is already kind of slow—, and would even not be editable). What about my second subject MEB? The Gradient Tool