Jowday

Except if a new team was put to work on requested features. That would affect feature development positively. That being said that if the goal is that a purchase from the store is automatically downloaded then it makes sense for the many non tech savvy users you are probably trying to attract with Affinity. And the new generation of customers who did not grow up with Norton Commander and the like. I didn't try to log in in the apps - never will - but I am curious how the PDF documentation for the brushes is handled. How will the customer get access to it? The feature will be especially interesting if: Resources (fx brushes) are shared between all programs Brushes can actually be arranged, re-arranged, grouped and sorted inside the programs (in the panels) as requested many times Resource files are optimized more often - or perhaps split up into several files The new team will not run out of work. 🙂

Let Serif do the explaining.

I know it is a nightmare, @Uwe367, it was a joke 🙂 I gave up using Designer for most uses; mostly because of missing features but even the more basic work I tried to finish was sabotaged by the faulty divide.

But divide is implemented how you always dreamed? In this workhorse:

I don’t need a forum police. I need free transform, distort, envelope distort. Whatever it is called, we need it. A lot - LOT - of posts are created and replied to by active or potential (!!!) Serif customers because the feature is extremely missed, needed and anticipated. CREATE. Don’t patrol.

Super - you are welcome 🙂

The message does not speak for itself - it is far from clear and consise.

Yet another thread where the problem is... significant lack of usability because no educated, real user experience designers were involved. Until you see Serif trying to recruit one here: https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/careers/ ... things will not get much better. Serif always focused on marketing and terms like "professional", "jaw dropping", "stunning". You know, strategies from last century.

...

Same here. It is also re-activated if you select another layer.

Expect never. Hope for earlier than that.

You didn't learn plotting graphs in relation to curves in Photo editing software. You learned what a graph is. This is about basic usability and coherency from feature to feature in Photo and across programs as well. Who ever asked for X and Y coordinates among users of Photo software now that no one else uses it? Where is the advantage? How does it improve curve editing? How intuitive is it?

Did I? 🙂 I showed an animation of how it works in PS. Perhaps that is what you are referring to. This is what the Photoshop Help says about their curve adjustment and what it represents: And here you see curves in Photoshop in action - more telling perhaps: Photo This is the Affinity Help - written by an engineer? I am not sure what help or clue the labels X or Y provides the user with in the context. What effect does these values have, Serif. Output and input makes much more sense. And as a reference to the world - GIMP curves - also input-output: Because in the end we use these terms in the software elsewhere: Photoshop Even Photo Also GIMP

This should be the inner dialog in the mind of a user experience designer prior to a beta release.

This is how it works in Adobe Photoshop @dmstraker No traces of graph paper and engineers. The x and y values in this beta with three decimals ... no thank you. That is the Rawtherapee UI mistake. I often adjust the integer values when adjusting LAB curves in Photoshop, easy to remember and enter - even easier than copy pasting.

The question will still be "arrival of what" - will it be exactly what you need and like.

I think customizable or additional custom panels would perhaps solve some scenarios and customer preferences.

Hi @Willabong I don't use Photo so this is from memory. But a few recommendations from me - I use LUT's A LOT in Photoshop. These profiles will often give the image an over-cooked look so here is how I would have used them in Photo. I would - one profile at the time - test it on some images. I would add a contrast layer, a vibrance layer and a highlight and shadow layer and adjust them individually. After a few tests I will figure an average out... fx best settings will be the LUT layer at 60% opacity, a contrast layer with -4 contrast and a highlight shadow layer that lifts he shadows a bit. Perhaps I would add a little vibrance. Whatever you feel makes the image look right. Averaged. With that knowledge I would record a macro that Adds the LUT layer with the above setting Adds the contrast layer with the above setting Adds the highlight-shadows layer with the above setting Adds the vibrance layer with the above setting Adds whatever layer you need I think (memory, perhaps I am wrong) You then have to add the macro to the library yourself (?) Have to group the LUT related layers manually (you don't have group them though) Repeat this macro-mania for each LUT you want to use on a regular basis

It would be helpful, yes.

Not for professional software. Affinity is $120 of hobbyist software for life and eternal waiting for features, fixes and improvements. But that is for the entire suite. Lets talk about Photoshop. Photoshop is $10 a month. Even as a young student working my ass of in a mall that was a fair and affordable price for someone actually needing it. In those days I couldn't AFFORD the retail price for Photoshop "for life" by the way. No one could but professionals and companies. That certainly changed. Compared to just my pencils, thinners, paint and paper and refills / new pencils, paper and various accessories I have ... then $120 a year for a mature and VERY professional product (PS) aimed at professionals is very affordable. Expenses all adds up for a professional - but Photoshop or paint or whatever... it is just running expenses in my line of business. Adobe really is one of the smaller expenses and I get a LOT for my money. A whole IT-factory. Other software services out there are - in direct comparison - ridiculously expensive. Those are the ones I would personally focus on. Pure fat. Expenses I can often avoid entirely.' Incomplete software with bugs, need for work-arounds or use of additional software to get the job done is in my experience the most counter-productive and expensive choice out there.

Correct. It is already too late - the professional market is already out of reach. Professional features, colours that blend naturally, natural brush movement... still nowhere to see. The hype was based on dreams and hope. And the hype is a thing of the past for this reason. Too little, too late, too slow. This is beggars can't be choosers software. Still a good thing. But nothing more.

Sigh. A new low. Believe it or not, some people actually learn and produce without living their life on a forum. I used Adobe for decades without a single post on the Adobe forums. But I did read a lot. And followed tutorials. I never had to post anything. Plenty of knowledge out there and plenty of features in Adobe CC. I believe @Nikon Shooter did the same. But why are you questioning him and his honesty, Internet Judge Alain P. ? I often see many users here as member of a semi-religious cult rather than a user base of creatives. Question the product and the usual responses pop up. Some users here could use auto replies posted by first generation chat bot tech. Would probably save them for several hours a week. The replies doesn't help Serif or the product development by the way.

OMG. The internet. It doesn't have to render it correctly. But I should be able to open the file after a warning that not all properties are supported. The result may be weird and not perfect - but also often almost OK. I will be able to retrieve something. This is a solution often used. Modern software simply allows people to open and save files in file formats not perfect - with plenty of warnings - but they can, because sometimes you have to. It is not perfect - but neither is democracy. It is just the least bad solution in several cases. Blocking access to good data is a no go. Entirely blocking customers from accessing the file (data) whatsoever is a solution from a century we left decades ago. But if you want to see the world in black or white - be my guest. A file with 200 design layers with classic content and then one insignificant layer with a contour = you can't open this file in 1.8 is simply ridiculous. Designing a clever file format can be done from the very beginning af development of even a new suite of programs. Was so decades and decades ago.

<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="XMP Core 5.5.0"> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/" xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/" xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/" xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/" xmlns:xmpMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/" xmlns:stEvt="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceEvent#" exif:PixelXDimension="80" exif:PixelYDimension="22" exif:ColorSpace="1" tiff:ImageWidth="80" tiff:ImageLength="22" tiff:ResolutionUnit="2" tiff:XResolution="96.0" tiff:YResolution="96.0" photoshop:ColorMode="3" photoshop:ICCProfile="sRGB IEC61966-2.1" xmp:ModifyDate="2020-10-07T12:35:36+02:00" xmp:MetadataDate="2020-10-07T12:35:36+02:00"> <dc:title> <rdf:Alt> <rdf:li xml:lang="x-default">Sample_96_DPI</rdf:li> </rdf:Alt> </dc:title> <xmpMM:History> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li stEvt:action="produced" stEvt:softwareAgent="Affinity Designer 1.8.5" stEvt:when="2020-10-07T12:35:36+02:00"/> </rdf:Seq> </xmpMM:History> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> </x:xmpmeta>

I got the DPI from the metadata in the file read in A file Viewer. Maybe some binary data in the file are different,