Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lorox

  1. So far all reactions have been to my problem with the Follow/Notification problem, which of course is solved by now (thanks to you). I'm just wondering, however, if I'm actually the only one around here who would appreciate having that feature of direct gradient rotation control within that gradient details context box... (more or less like in Photoshop, where you can do that e.g. in the gradient's settings for a gradient fill layer or the gradient overlay fx) I really think it would be quite ergonomic to be immediately able to dial in a rotation and not always being forced to make that second step of changing to the gradient tool just for finally setting the rotation.
  2. Hi Isabel, I guess this been solved meanwhile, but I just encountered the same problem (although with a cheap but usable Gaomon graphics tablet). While using the brush I was used to just hold the ALT key and click on an area on the canvas in order to pick that colour to the brush (or rather as the new current foreground colour) – that's been the way to go in Photoshop for ages... As this didn't seem to work in Affinity Photo I was quite irritated at first but then it turned out that in Affinity Photo you have to actually (and noticeably) DRAG(click) the stylus (or the mouse) – doing a click while remaining stationary doesn't do anything. Cheers L. P.S.: Keep up those nice YouTube videos you do. These have been helping me quite a bit while getting into the Affinity apps.
  3. Hi dominik, as to your question (sorry for answering somewhat belatedly): making the bounding box invisible while dragging the selected object works perfectly for me, too. However, when the object which I'm working on is stationary and I just want to change some of its attributes – like, say, fiddle around with its stroke width or with a gradient or an effect that's been assigned to it – the bounding box with its blue lines and other marks becomes really obtrusive and it's sometimes hard to judge the effects of what I'm doing to the object in an unhindered way. This is especially true if that object is rather small but you have to see it in context with other elements around it (thus limiting the zoom factor used and leaving that object rather small on screen). And while working on that object, I'll just HAVE to move the mouse (or pen) which immediately makes the bounding box become visible again... As to your other remark: I have Publisher and I checked what you wrote – it is exactly like you say (in InDesign it's just the same – and for good reason), BUT: in "Preview Mode" everything that's not printing is hidden (as expected) EXCEPT for a selected object's bounding box! So we're back to the original problem... In Illustrator, however, you have exactly what I'd really like Designer (and, for that, Publisher) to have: in the "View" ("Ansicht") menu you can toggle between "Hide Corners" ("Ecken ausblenden") and "Show Corners" ("Ecken einblenden") which actually applies to selected objects. This way you can work on an object which then just shows "live" the changes you're making to it but doesn't show any markers showing that it's actually selected at the moment (but which you, of course, know at the time) – this way you're getting a true and unhindered preview! Seems simple enough to me and I do hope the guys at Serif won't find it too hard to implement in the future...
  4. Hi dominik, thank you very much! This (pressing the spacebar) is certainly better than nothing, but I actually want to be able not to just look at but to actively DO things within my file, while not having to see the bounding box or the selection marquee – so I inevitably HAVE to move the mouse (or graphics tablet pen) most of the time. Considering this I'd say some keyboard shortcut to toggle the visibility of these "markers" (and possibly ALL distracting elements – like guides etc. – at the same time) would be highly useful and ergonomic. You can do so in Illustrator and Photoshop since forever and I think – while I know it's not the point to mimick these programs from A to Z – it's not a bad thing at all to learn from your competitors. They just will have done some things right after all... This appears to be one of them. L.
  5. As the possibility of adding "Noise" to colours is in fact very useful, I dearly miss to set the amount of noise to a chosen and controlable numeric value. Though it often may be enough to set the amount of noise in certain colours just visually, it seems quite desirable to be able to set a consistent and exact equal amount of noise for colours of objects which are somehow related. I noted that (especially in conical gradients) it may be quite crucial to set exactly the same amonut of noise to the gradient stops on the the "ends" of the gradient as these two eventually meet to close the circle with thes kind of gradients. But even so, I think it's not exactly plausible why you SHOULDN'T have precise and reproducible control of such a visually prominent feature... BTW: Though I obviously discovered it eventually I do not really understand why the "Noise" control is "hidden" the way it is "behind" the fill's or stroke's opacity control so you can always see one of them at the same time. It would be much nicer to be able to see both settings at the same glance.
  6. Sorry, but – in this forum – please also add the possibility to be able to (re)set the notification button, if you forgot to set it to "ON" when you first submitted your post... That button is so unspectacular, I unfortunately tend to overlook it each time... *** Please add a control for the gradient’s direction in the context toolbar (see attached screenshot). I feel that the gradient's direction is as important a setting as type, colour of the stops, reverse or not and so on. Especially with small detail objects it is quite annoying always having to adjust the rotation of an object's given gradient by going directly to the object on canvas with the gradient tool. Especially when the gradient is applied to the stroke of an object as you have to take additional steps just to select that gradient (going to "Fill" in the context toolbar first, then switching to "Stroke" there and then – at last – getting the proper handles on the canvas).
  7. I just experienced what a nuisance it is when you cannot hide the bounding box of an object when you're doing detail work of some kind or other on an objects. Oftentimes you have an object selected and want to add a delicate stroke or a sophisticated gradient fill and you notice that you just cannot really judge what you're doing unless you deselect the object to get a proper view without the (quite obtrusive) bounding box getting into the view – really spoiling the preview. I'd say this is also true with other indicators (marquee, marching ants in pixel persona etc.) of an object being currently selected. Just hiding the bounding box while dragging (as is already possible) is not enough, because the object is not being moved while doing things like mentioned above. I'd highly appreciate some kind of toggle keyboard command – like "command (or control on Windows) H" like in Photoshop which completely deactivates (and switches on) any current selection indicators.
  8. Quite reassuring that I don't seem to be alone with that problem here... The workaround you mention is exactly the one I chose, too. But the problem remains that if you do so you won't get proper cropmarks, should you need them, as the document format (now including bleed) is no longer that of the cropped finished product... So the solution seems to be – for now – to set up the document not using an artboard at all (thus limiting yourself to just on page). With me this at least got me back my crop area while exporting. Not being actually able to see what's in that area while working on the file remains highly annoying, though.
  9. Although the "Snapshots"-studio/panel is definitely useful, it unfortunately falls noticeably short of the possibilities that e.g. "Layercomps" in Photoshop offer. The use of Snapshots would be very much more ergonomic if these features could be added in future versions: Please… - allow manual sorting of the list entries. Oftentimes you create snapshots which are related to another, but you don't necessesarily create them all in a row. So it would be extremely helpful to be able to shuffle the snapshot entries around after the fact to give the list an individual logical order - maybe even offer an option to group snapshots? - allow updating an existing snapshot after the file has been changed in one way or other. It's quite a nuisance to be forced to create a completely new snapshot each time and then delete the older snapshot which you basically just want to override/update. - allow renaming existing snapshots. I find it quite common to come up with a better snapshot name after a while (possibly after having created further alternatives). I think I'm still forgetting something... (may be added later).
  10. I have set up my file in AP with millimeters as the overall unit but I just noticed that whenever I switch to a selection tool (like the rectangular marquee or the lasso, no matter what, though) the units in the Transform panel immediately switch to "px". They switch back to millimeters when I select another tool. When I checked this behaviour in Designer, I had to realize that it's exactly the same there... This can't be anything but a bug, can it?
  11. I, too, am feeling completely unnnerved because of being not able to see/preview the bleed area. Of course, there may be workarounds by setting the document's dimensions to include bleed and then having some auxiliary shapes to mark the cropped area, but when you need proper crop marks eventually, this is bound to cause problems. When you do print ready artwork the feature of being able to switch the visibility of the bleed area on and off is just a definite MUST HAVE. BUT – What's more – there's obviously something about the "Artboard", which I don't seem to understand: For hours I've been struggling to export a Designer file (A2 artboard plus 3 mm bleed) as a JPG but every time the bleed just didn't make it into the JPG – although I positively had checked "Include bleed" in the export "More"-options as well as having chosen "Whole Document" (instead of just "Artboard 1")! I'm completely at a loss about what's been happening here... As it happened the size of the exported JPG was actually and correctly A2 plus 3 mm bleed (426 mm x 600 mm) BUT the supposed bleed area (basically a 3 mm wide frame) is just plain white and doesn't show any parts of those elements supposed to reach into the bleed area. HOWEVER: When I delete the artboard from my file (by moving everything else above the artboard in the layers panel and then deleting the empty artboard at the bottom of the staple) and THEN export with the same setting as before, the bleed area DOES show up correctly in the exported JPG. Is there a thought behind this, which I possibly do not understand yet?
  12. I just found out "Pressure" affects different properties according to the type of the brush/stroke used. Might have thought of that earlier....
  13. Sorry, you're right... Concerning this very discussion, though, I find that following the instructions above my stroke gets more or less transparent when I use the "Pressure" feature while the stroke width remains the same. What am I missing here?
  14. I was just searching for the same thing as Hans and I think while it's nice to be able to change stroke widths at different places of the path at all, it would be a very much welcome feature if you could do this directly on the path and not in an extra "presssure" window where you have to sort of guess which place there corresponds to which place on the actual path. The stroke width or line thickness tool in Illustrator does this just fine and I think – although we shouldn't really aim at making Designer an Illustrator clone – it can't harm to learn from your "adversaries"... so I'd be very happy if such a tool for the direct "local" manipulation of a stroke's width would find its way in here.
  15. That's perfectly true! Especially when doing comparisons with the Adobe line of programs we have to be aware that they are around version 20 (or so) while with Affinity we're not even version 2... Having that in mind it's hard NOT to see what HAS been achieved with AD and AP so far nevertheless.
  16. Thanks! I just recently learned about that Cycle Future option. It's interesting (as well as the “Save History With Document” option), but I find it's not entirely intuitive (at least for me...). Imagine a file you have created months or years ago which you have to come back to for some updating or rearranging. I'd think anything not completely self explaining – as accordingly named snapshots might be – will set you thinking longer than desirable just to remember how you thought about it when you created the file in the first place. I really think adding the option to update or duplicate and rename snapshots will be a most welcome feature.
  17. @ walt.farrell: Thank you, of course that's a way to finally have what I want, but it is a bit clumsy, isn't it? Not exactly elegant. Also, for a short while, you'll have 2 snapshots with the same name, which I personally find a little awkward.
  18. Recently I created a file in Affinity Photo where I had a couple of different states of the file to show to a client (mostly different layers were turned on or off with these states). Obviously you can create the corresponding "snapshots" and then just activate the one you need to export as a JPG for example. Sometimes, however, you notice that one or another of these snapshots still need a bit of tweaking after you have created them. So e.g. you add another adjustment layer to – say – "Snapshot 3". In Photoshop you just can update your "Layercomp" after you've done this, but in Affinity Photo I haven't found a way that's as easy as that. I don't even seem to be able to just beforehand duplicate the snapshot I want to modify an then just rename it. In fact, it doesn't seem to be possible to rename ANY snapshot after the fact. Is this really the way it's supposed to be or am I missing something here?
  19. First of all: think the introduction of multiple strokes and fills for single vector objects in Designer is a REALLY great feature. Back in the day it was such a revelation when I discovered the same feature in Adobe Illustrator and it proved extremely useful when working with that program. That said I was absolutely happy when with version 1.7 you could do this in Desiger as well. However, what I do still miss is the ability to individually modify strokes or fills apart from changing colour, stroke width or transparency mode. Although I hate to bring in Illustrator once again: there you can add single or multiple "Effects" (transformations of various kinds) to any of an object's individual strokes or fills and this opens up so many possibilities! So this is actually a request for 2 features: 1. Please add something like Illustrator's "Effects" (non destructive as they are) 2. Please add the possibility to transform or add an "effect" to individual strokes or fills of a multi-stroke/fill-object from the appearance panel independently from the other strokes/fills. Last thing: What you can do with Designer's (and Photo's) "Erase"-transparency mode is in fact very nice! As this is something I didn't know from the Adobe products (as they don't have it), it took me a while to discover, but I think it's really useful!
  20. Ah, thanks a lot! Again, coming from Photoshop, I wouldn't have thought of looking there... Probably because I was just thinking more in terms of the shapes themselves and not so much in terms of the layers they're on.
  21. Same for me! Coming from Photoshop as well I really struggled for some time with this. You just don't have the concept of that "Erase" blend mode in Photoshop so I fooled around around with multiple clipping and masking layers (in "Normal" blend mode") always getting something not really being what I wanted... (or the result becoming so complicated that on the next day I didn't understand anymore what I exactly did the day before...) It's easy, though, doing the trick with a pixel layer having a hole in it which you then just place above the picture. But then again shapes can be so easily and exactly modified that you rather want to use them instead of pixels... Apart from that: if there was some sort of "rectangular donut" shape in our box of tools, this would be easy, too! I imagine that I would have significantly more uses for such a shape (i.e. a rectangle with a rectangular hole in the middle) than I have for e.g. a heart shape.
  22. Yeah, that's an important suggestion, I think. You could of course use a stroke with some "rough" brush to visually get rough edges, but it would be VERY nice to roughen the path itself even if it is just a thin line and doesn't have a stroke. I know we shouldn't always bring in Adobe Illustrator for comparison, but justice be done, especially some of those features listed under "Effects" in AI have so often proved so convenient in my work that I'd really wish there could be some equivalent in Affinity Designer sooner or later. That those "Effects" can be altered any time later by changing their parameters and eventually be converted to just paths (when the design is finished for good) is also a very appreciated feature. There's also a tool to roughen up paths in the AI toolbar, but I personally haven't ever used that a lot so I do not miss it as much in AD as I do miss some of the "Effects". I've already suggested elsewhere in this forum that Affinity/Serif might consider to open up Designer to third party developers by way of allowing specialized plugins to be added to the basic programm (like it is – again – with AI and – e.g. – those interesting PlugIns by Astute Graphics). This might bring some additional momentum to the further evolution of this program (which – as of now – is just version 1.7.3 [and already kind of great!])
  23. Exactly, I'm completely with you here. Applies to me 99%. 1% is for – very rarely – being able to fix certain problems (like reducing unwanted color density caused by quirks in the PDF’s creator sortware) which cannot be addressed by making changes to the document within the app it's been used to create. And yeah: good font managers are another thing... (having nothing to do with the Affinty apps, though). The 100 bucks for Font Explorer X make me swallow, in fact, but given my usage of quite an extensive font library and my wish to have some solid structure here, it possibly seems justifiable (all others except Suitcase Fusion, an really old version which I've been able to use up to El Capitan on my Mac, are lacking on or the other feature I'd like to have). But it's almost double the price for an Affinity app nevertheless... I'm quite certain, however, I'd actually pay as much for an up to date PDF tool (meeting the requirements mentioned before), as long as I cannot be sure my PDFs from AD or AP are really 100% standards compliant, even if I do everything right (within the limits of those applications). That, however, seems like a valid point to me. Given that with Designer and especially Publisher you are meant to be able to create print ready files, it should be of absolute priority to Serif Software to ensure that PDFs output from these applications fully meet the standards of the print and prepress industry 100% (provided you set everything to the correct values/options during output, that is). I haven't actually dared to deliver PDFs from AD or AP to print myself so far, but I've noticed (following prepress community discussions) that there obviously have been some problems and concerns with/about full compliance to current PDF standards. I'm not sure if these have been sorted out yet.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. 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.