Sunny Burnett

Danke, aber für mich hat es sich inzwischen erledigt. Ich bin wieder zu Photoshop zurück. AP ist für Vielentwickler wie mich nicht geeignet, und ich habe auch wenig Hoffnung, dass sich das in absehbarer Zeit ändern wird. Ich hatte vor Jahren mal eine lange Liste mit Verbesserungsvorschlägen und Bugs an Serif geschickt. Beim letzten Update war noch immer nichts davon umgesetzt. Daher war's das für mich. Vielleicht schau ich in ein paar Jahren mal wieder rein. 😉

Das Problem hat sich erledigt. Ich hatte, wie bei früheren Windows-Versionen, den Temp-Pfad auf Laufwerk D:\ verlegt, um die SSD auf Laufwerk C:\ nicht mit unnötigen Schreibvorgängen zu belasten. Unter Windows 10 führt das aber beim Installieren von verschiedenen Applikationen (also nicht nur Affinity) zu Problemen. Da andere Applikationen einen Fehlercode ausgegeben haben (2203), konnte ich die Ursache selber eingrenzen und beheben. Trotzdem danke für Eure Rückmeldungen!

Ich versuche gerade, alle drei Apps (Photo, Designer und Publisher) auf die aktuelle Version 1.83 upzudaten. Doch bei allen drei Apps erfolgt die Meldung: „Fehler beim Update“, ohne weitere Hinweise. Wie kann das denn passieren? Die bereits installierten Versionen laufen problemlos (mal abgesehen von den üblichen Bugs). System: Windows 10 mit allen Updates.

Gern geschehen! Am liebsten würde ich zu Affinity reisen und mal vor Ort zeigen, was ich alles verbessern würde. Wenn man den Entwicklern zeigt, wie Fotografen und Grafiker arbeiten, wird vielleicht eher klar, warum manche Dinge, so wie sie jetzt sind, nicht so gut gelöst sind. Ich habe schon mal vor einigen Monaten eine lange Liste mit Verbesserungsvorschlägen hingeschickt und bin gespannt, welche es in die nächste Version geschafft haben.

Oh, very good! That is what I'm missing at Adobe: The possibility to influence the positive development of the software. Thanks and best regards to the development team.

Thank you, MEB!

Yes, there are many ways to reach the stars. But do you want to explain to anyone who comes to AP from any other image processing program and stumbles across the same problem because they are used to it in almost all applications, including Firefox, Word, Audition, etc., that it is now solved differently with AP is? (I hope that the last sentenses make any sense, because it's translated bei Google)

Okay, so Affinity puts the pixel image in some form of container made of vectors, right? Maybe that's the wrong way to go. I like to repeat myself again: Photoshop also uses containers that keep the state of the object instead of rasterizing them immediately. There they are called Smart Objects. Nevertheless, you can make a selection and copy there if the pixels are concerned. Maybe Affinity should see how Adobe does it. Otherwise, I could also accept Christian's suggestion that an assistant take care of the problem silently in the background. The main thing is that it is somehow solved, because it cannot stay the way it is now. The same applies in the software industry as in marketing: great marketing tricks don't work if you have to explain them. Or in programming language: software features are poorly designed if they don't work intuitively and you have to explain them.

Aber genau das ist doch der Punkt! Wenn es sich um ein Pixelbild handelt, muss es nicht erst gerastert werden. Es besteht doch schon aus Pixeln. Man muss doch nur die Pixel, die sich innerhalb der Auswahl befinden, in den Zwischenspeicher kopieren und in eine neue Ebene einfügen.

You're right, it's not. But that is an argument: Photoshop is the standard photo application in the professional field. Affinity products are also aimed at professional users. If Affinity Adobe ever wants to lose significant market share, the products must be at least as good as Adobe's products in the medium and long term. However, it would be better if they were better than Adobe products. I don't see that at the moment. On the contrary, I see tons of potential and room for improvement in all Affinity applications. Affinity would do well to take customers' opinions seriously, instead of dismissing suggestions and bug reports as unimportant. I hate Adobe! This company has bought and screwed up or screwed up several good products over the past twenty years. Last year alone I reported about ten new bugs to Abobe, of which only one has been fixed so far. That's why I support Affinity. I have now bought the entire collection for the second time, first for the Mac, then for Windows. I am already writing my new book in Publisher instead of Indesign. But if important basics, such as opening RAW images (DNG) do not improve quickly, I will probably have to work with Adobe products again. I understand that not everything can be perfect right from the start. And I also see a lot of great features at Affinity. But Affinity is not yet good enough for serious work under time pressure.

Yes! But rasterization as an intermediate step should not be necessary if the image layer already contains a raster image (screenshot). It would only be necessary if a vector-based EPS file or text was included. Is it really that hard to understand? With Photoshop and a smart object consisting of pixels, that's also possible, so why shouldn't that be possible with AP? (translated with Google Translator)

Oh no, please don't do that! It's not that this functionality isn't listed in Help. In my opinion, including this into the help is actually the wrong way, because it establishes an illogical, incomprehensible mode of operation for all times. The point is that the Affinity developers understand that a change is necessary here! If I make a selection from a layer that contains pixels, whether it is an image layer or a pixel layer, then after copying and pasting, only the selection made can be copied and pasted, and not the whole image again. Here is my first post in English: 1. I take a screenshot in any app (e.g. Firefox) 2. I switch to AP and create a new document using "New from clipboard". 3. The screenshot is visible in the new document. Now I create a selection frame (i.e. a much smaller part of the screenshot, for example 50 x 20 pixels) 4. I press Ctrl + C for "copy" 5. I press Ctrl + V for "insert" 6. Now, however, the previously marked area (50 x 20 pixels) is not inserted as a new layer, but the whole screenshot again. In order to copy only the selected area, another function that differs from the norm must be selected, namely "reduced copying". Please try to understand that this is illogical! (translated with Google Translation)

Okay, I corrected my statement. 😉

@ walt.farrell: I know the difference between vector and pixel. I know, that I can't import an vectorizided EPS-file and select, copy and paste a part of it without rastered it before. But that's not the point. I'm talking about make a new document from a SCREENSHOT. And a screenshot is a pixel image anytime. I don't think that AP convert it into a vectorized image. In principle this ist possible! Adobe Illustrator have an option to convert pixel into vector. But I don't believe, that AP is doing that. So we have two choices: 1. Starting a new document, for example 100 x 30 pixels. 2. Importing a pixel image in the size of the canvas (100 x 30 pixels). In AP it ist called "pixel layer". 3. Importing a pixel image with the size of the original image (for example 10.000 x 3.000 pixels). In AP it is called "image layer", right? It prevents the original size for not loosing information and resolution until I flatten it to one layer. In Photoshop it is called "smart object". But it contains pixels, not vectors! (Unless I'm importing a vector file—EPS or AI) 4. In Photoshop I can (!) select, copy and paste a part of it. In AP I can't. In AP I need another command (Strg + Shift + C) because Strg + C does crazy things. 🙄 Why not? This are only pixels! Sorry for my bad english.

@ Chris B: I understand the intention. But that makes no sense, if I have an active selection. What do you think, why I'm doing a selection? To copy the whole picture? Of course not! Because I want to copy the selected area. I'm sorry for my bad english.