Jeremy Bohn

Hello. Look a little bit further down the forum to find this topic being discussed...

I don't understand the inconsistency either. No one has been able to explain the reasoning to me. I posted about this awhile ago and was given the settings tip as well, which I prompted changed.

Yes, I found it misleading that they call them vector brushes. When I watched tutorials on creating them I then realized it was not at all what it claims to be. Disappointing.

I agree. This is a big shortcoming. Recently discussed here.

Agreed. I would expect snapping to work depending on the Snap setting being on or off, and that's all. Visibility or Preview mode should have nothing to do with it.

Exactly!

There is definite problem there because even in my attempts to simplify the document, it still renders the PDF incorrectly. I think it's to do with the honeycomb pattern fill. Re: simplifying - instead of creating a fill layer with the gradient and then cropping it to a shape layer (in your file it's a pixel layer), just create the shape you want with the pen tool and fill it with a gradient. You end up with one object instead of 2 and no pixel layer involved. Also in working with your file I get serious rendering issues as shown here when not in Preview mode: Also I tried rasterizing the honeycomb pattern with the mask to see if that helped and look how it ends up getting cropped and moved (the selected object bounded in blue):

I'd forgotten about this thread. I posted here not to long ago about copying and pasting effects in Publisher. From one document into another, the effect amounts were cut roughly in half. But then when I tried to reproduce the problem later, it worked properly. But it is obviously still an issue.

Agreed. It's like there should be an Apply button or something. Also, I find the menus you click on to change the font really annoyingly short.

Unless I'm missing something, the Font Manager in Publisher is seriously lacking. I don't understand why there is a way to specify a substitution for a missing font, but no way to actually apply the substitution. And if the font isn't missing, you can't even pick a substitution. The only way around it appears to have set up Styles from the start and then change the styles one by one. But Publisher needs to have a feature like Adobe's "Find Font" in InDesign and Illustrator and Quark...

Is this a fix for my bug reported here (opacity changed on vector cropped artwork when exported to PDF)?

That's what I would expect too, Jens.

I think this is the same as what I reported here. It turns out that when you export something that uses the vector crop tool, you get a different result.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to do, but leading is not for characters but is the spacing between lines. If you want to adjust the height of just a character then you need to use the baselines adjustment setting in the Character panel.

If this is what I think it is, then THANKS. As a new user, the lack of this working before caused me grief.

Good observation, but both documents are 300dpi and when I tried copying and pasting between the 2 again days later, I wasn't able to replicate the issue.

When I first posted that, I was able to replicate it over and over. Now today, I can't. So there must have been something else I had done before. But I was copying from another document and pasting into a new one when the FX weren't pasting correctly.

There is a problem in the Layer Effects window when editing the Highlight and Shadow of a bevel or emboss. Clicking on the Highlight or Shadow button opens a small window but when you change the blend mode and close the window, then open it again, the blend mode often no longer matches what you had just picked.

When I copy then paste FX on an object, the effects are halved when pasted. For instance, a bevel or shadow effect on text, I choose copy, then select a new text element and go Edit > Paste FX. The amount of shadow and bevel is half of what it was on the original item.

Could be the font. I got this issue using the font ITC Zapf Dingbats.

Exactly, and this happened to me.

To clarify, I mean in the Layers panel there isn't anything that's very helpful. I never would have thought to look elsewhere for this information. Over time, a person can learn to tell the difference. I can see the difference now, but when I was a new user I had no idea and was frustrated to the point of no longer using the app. And even now that I know, I often forget about the differences. And that's my point R C-R - you keep trying to justify why things work the way they do and I'm telling you it's too confusing for a lot of new users. I'm not saying they need to change the layer types but need to do more to explain the 2 types (image/pixel) because they look almost exactly the same. The fact that the online Help does not mention the layer types where it needs to (for instance, my Flood Select example) highlights the fact that Serif is only thinking from an experienced position, and not the new user or Photoshop user, and frustrated users might give up and Serif loses a customer. P.S. side note: I also don't understand why it's called "Rasterize" in the Layers panel. This is because an image is already raster information. I think Rasterize is the wrong term. Also, after I've rasterized a layer, why is the command still available? The command should be dimmed out once I've already used it on a particular layer. I know, I know, this is a whole other topic but this all just adds to the confusion.

I understand that, and most of that is even how Photoshop works. My quarrel is with the nature of image vs. pixel layers. There is almost no way to tell the difference in the layer types nor does the app do anything to help you or explain it. I didn't even know about the 2 types until months after I bought Photo. I'm just saying the app needs to do more to explain the differences. You have to look at it from a new user's or ex-photoshopper's point of view - it's completely foreign, yet Affinity does nothing to help. For example, I seriously thought the Flood Select tool was broken because it did nothing to my image. I even Googled for help and I was apparently doing exactly what I was supposed to do, but it wasn't working. There was no indication of the layer types and that I had to convert the image to pixels. Even the help pages make no mention of this. How hard would it be to make the app tell you that the tool will have no affect when you click on the layer? Something like "The currently selected tool will not work with the current layer until it's converted to pixels" and then offer to convert it. For the example of creating a selection and then pressing the delete key, the very nature of those steps in that order almost certainly guarantees that the intent is to remove what you have selected. To someone without knowledge of the layer types, the current behaviour would seem to defy logic.

The purpose of the marquee tool is to select something. What purpose is there in defining a selection NOT attached to any content? Who would define a selection if there are no layers in the document? What is the purpose of an "enclosed area on the canvas" - just something to look at? No, I want to perform some function on it. If I use the marquee tool I expect a selection. If I press delete on a selection, I expect it to delete the selection. Anything other than that is counter-intuitive. In fact, that's really how Affinity Photo works, UNLESS it's not a Pixel layer! As the original poster said, all you have to do is look at how many times this question keeps being asked. Then wonder how many times it's NOT being asked and people just give up. How does Photoshop decide which layer to delete? Have you ever used Photoshop? There is always a layer selected in Photoshop. If there is a marquee selection on the current layer (highlighted in the Layers panel), then whatever is in that selection is deleted from the layer. If there is no marquee selection, then the current layer is deleted. R C-R, I appreciate your involvement to many discussions in these forums but it's like there's a gang of several users on here who's goal is to convince everyone that the Affinity way is the only way. You need to understand that many new users are going to be ex-Adobe users and like myself will get very frustrated with how some features appear to be change just for the sake of change. In my case, I bought the app and barely used it because it just seemed like some stuff wasn't working right, so I went back to Photoshop. Turns out, the "pixel layer" was the number one culprit. Luckily down the road I gave the app another chance. Once a user understands the pixel-layer concept then it gets easier, but it STILL to this day trips me up.

I'd argue that if a person had drawn a selection box and pressed the delete key, that 100% guaranteed the intent was to delete a selection and NOT delete a layer. Pretty dumb if you ask me, that you select part of an image but really what you've selected is the entire layer, all because it's a "smart" layer and not a pixel layer. Photoshop understands this difference with no problem - if nothing is selected in the document, THEN the delete key will delete a layer. Bottom line - they have to do a better job at differentiating between the 2 types of layers and the tools that apply to each kind.