AP Gradient Tool

[zypher69]

I LOVE Affinity Photo. I love it so much that I switched from Photoshop last year. There were SO many things wrong with PS and so many great things about AP that switching was not difficult. However, as I've been using AP over the last six months, I have come to realize that THE GRADIENT TOOL needs A LOT of improvement. There are other issues / tools that could also use some improvement, but the gradient tool stands out the most for me.

Whenever I use it, I am confused about how to use it. I've viewed forums, online tutorials and YouTube videos that do instruct users on how to use it properly, but I "forget" how to use it almost every time. I'm a seasoned graphic designer too. I was a PS user for over twenty years. Using such a tool shouldn't be so hard and bothersome. I always end up having to re-create gradients and I have problems when trying to create "transparent" gradients. 

It seems creating a simple transparent single color gradient (overlay) should not be so difficult. Also, I'd rather NOT have to constantly change the default gradient colors to black and white EVERY time I use it. Why is grey the default color setting for the gradient tool? My complaints aren't so much about default colors as it is general performance. I understand how gradients work. I dare say that Photoshop's gradient tool works like a breeze. It works perfectly. Why must AP's approach to gradients be so difficult? Another frustrating part of using gradients in AP is how hard it is to use the tool to blend two images together. I find it odd that one has to use a "mask" to get two images to blend into each other via a gradient. 

To put it simply, the gradient tool should be more robust and EASY to work with. I use lots of gradients when I do composite art (such as when blending a grassy field into a separate sky background).  I do feel confident that Serif (Affinity Photo developers) will implement some or all of the changes I've requested at some point in the future. I know I'm not the only user who's had problems with the gradient tool. After all, we do not want Photoshop to remain the supreme digital photo editor much longer now do we? True competition requires making things BETTER than others. "Good" just doesn't cut it with me. I prefer getting as close to perfection as humanly possible. I know AP can do this!

[TH3_TWIN]

Hey I just stumbled onto your post, I have the same problem / feelings.

I've been using Photoshop for around 8 years and have a similar workflow for blending images together using masks:

In PS: Apply a mask to the layer, then use an additive radial gradient to the mask (black to transparent or white to transparent) - adjust the transparency as required.

This makes it really easy to blend two images together by slowly adding new gradients.

 

In AP, the paintbrush works like this on masks but when I use the gradient tool, it overwrites previous gradients / brushstrokes in the mask.

This is frustrating as I cannot slowly blend the image together and I can only adjust a single gradient rather than adding multiple.

I like how the gradients can be changed after creating them, but there should be an alternative mode where I can add loads of gradients onto a single layer as if it were a bitmap tool.

 

Zypher69, how are you currently blending images together using masks? Are you using the paintbrush or am I missing something?

Apologies if this is currently possible as I am still fairly new to AP.

 

[zypher69]

TH3_TWIN, you're having the exact problems I'm having. I just try my best to create the kind of gradient I need in one go so I don't have to start all over again as you mentioned. I also use the rectangle tool (with no fill) to provide a "shell" of sorts for the gradient to exist in. Some tutorials have shown that is how to work with gradients in AP. It's frustrating having to mess around with the rectangle tool in addition to a lousy gradient tool. I even have trouble getting the opacity right and I'm lucky if I get the results I'm looking for in a given project. Sometimes it works fine, other times it's a hassle.

When I blend images, I use the simple paint brush tool with a soft round basic brush to perform almost all of blending using masks. I sometimes use the gradient tool, but as you know, AP overwrites previous gradients, so it's best to "try" to do what you need to do in one go unless you want to start over again and again. It's frustrating too, because I used to LOVE using the gradient tool in Photoshop. For all that I love about Affinity Photo, I do miss some things about Photoshop that seemed to just work. I can only digress though.

Hopefully the attached image of the accordion is an example of when I actually did get results I was looking for. I'll have to create an example image of when I'm having trouble and post it soon so people will know more about what our problems have been.  I post the accordion image just to say that the tool does work, it just needs to be refined to work better. Thanks for your comments and questions.

[Move Along People]

-

[Medical Officer Bones]

@haakoo This is not a question of HOW to use the gradient tool, or how to accomplish blending of multiple image layers.

Rather, the issue with the gradient tool in Affinity Photo is two-fold:

1. it is currently not possible to use the gradient tool in an additive manner in a (bitmap) mask: Photo will replace the mask's existing content and replace it with the new gradient, and;
2. the gradient tool lacks the option to set the blend mode: if the user could change the gradient's blend mode to (for example) multiply it would be very simple to create multiple gradients to simplify blending via a bitmap layer mask.

If you've ever worked in alternatives like PhotoLine, Photoshop, GIMP, Krita, you will immediately miss this option when doing basic compositing work.

There are other issues with the gradient tool, but this is quite frustrating. In my experience, Affinity Photo is riddled with such small paper cuts throughout its basic tools.

The accepted solution would be to integrate a blend mode option in the gradient tool. Why it wasn't added in the first place defies comprehension, because every single other bitmap gradient tool on the planet includes it.

 

[zypher69]

MEDICAL OFFICER BONES: Very well said. That's what I suppose I was trying to say. LOL! You hit the nail on the head with your comment "Affinity Photo is riddled with such small paper cuts throughout its basic tools." That's also precisely my point!

[Murfee]

I don't know if this will help anybody but I do a huge amount of masking using various methods depending on the result I am looking for. I can easily combine many gradients in a single mask by nesting rectangles or any shape with a gradient applied, these gradients are fully editable and do not remove info from the original mask. You can also change the blend mode of each shape depending on your needs.

To add the various gradient shapes they need to be dragged to the right of the Mask layer's thumbnail.

You can also save gradients in the swatches panel, create a category then when you have a gradient that you want to keep click the add current fill to palette button, if you want to make it easier to identify your gradient rename it to something meaningful, then when you hover over the swatch the name shows, this can be really helpful if you have swatches that look similar.

I am not saying that there isn't room for improvement with the gradient tool but there are ways to achieve what you are looking for, just that they may be different to what you are used to or expect.

I have attached a very simple screenshot with a pink layer to highlight the different gradients in a single mask.You can also see the various saved gradients in the swatches panel. 

(dog image from Unsplash )

[Move Along People]

-
 

[Wosven]

For example: use a black to transparent gradient on a new white mask. The result is a complete black mask instead of black to white, when we only wanted to add black on part of the mask. And being able to do it more than once if needed.
If we had modes like multiply with the gradient tool, we could do this with a black to white gradient, and mask more some parts of the mask, use radial or different gradients for effect, etc.

In fact, it would be nice to have the gradient behaving like a brush, with general opacity and modes of the whole gradient, independent of the internal colours opacity, and if it would work on a mask or on a pixel layer differently than on a vector object: adding a second gradient add more colour(s), instead of replacing the previously applied gradient.

It can be an option for the Gradient tool, this way, previous works done with the gradient would stay the same, or it could be use the other way if needed.
For now, we have to use the brushes to try to get the same results, without having as much precision.

And the gradient keeping the last use colours instead of reverting to linear white to light grey each time you select another object.

 

 

[Medical Officer Bones]

7 hours ago, Murfee said:

I don't know if this will help anybody but I do a huge amount of masking using various methods depending on the result I am looking for. I can easily combine many gradients in a single mask by nesting rectangles or any shape with a gradient applied, these gradients are fully editable and do not remove info from the original mask. You can also change the blend mode of each shape depending on your needs.

To add the various gradient shapes they need to be dragged to the right of the Mask layer's thumbnail.

You can also save gradients in the swatches panel, create a category then when you have a gradient that you want to keep click the add current fill to palette button, if you want to make it easier to identify your gradient rename it to something meaningful, then when you hover over the swatch the name shows, this can be really helpful if you have swatches that look similar.

I am not saying that there isn't room for improvement with the gradient tool but there are ways to achieve what you are looking for, just that they may be different to what you are used to or expect.

Having the option to combine multiple layer masks is great, no doubt, agreed. And if I want to work non-destructively I would definitely make use of stacked gradients for masking.

But this is not always a desirable or efficient method of working. When the user just wants to quickly block out a mask by combining various gradients, the non-destructive approach becomes a workflow-stopper, because it is a rather cumbersome method.

1 hour ago, Wosven said:

In fact, it would be nice to have the gradient behaving like a brush, with general opacity and modes of the whole gradient, independent of the internal colours opacity, and if it would work on a mask or on a pixel layer differently than on a vector object: adding a second gradient add more colour(s), instead of replacing the previously applied gradient.

This is exactly how just about any other software on the market implemented the gradient tool. And it is still baffling to me that Affinity's developers seemingly consciously decided against including a blend mode.

6 hours ago, haakoo said:

Well ok not your cup of tea to use the very simple gradient tool.
Better provide an example of what it is you can do in PS what you can't do in AFphoto

Compare the Fill tool: why include a blend mode option in the Fill tool if you expect all your users to work non-destructively? Why not just force users to create a solid fill layer then? The answer is obvious: because it makes no sense. It is a ridiculous thought to force your users to create a new layer for each fill. Users want to be able to use the same fill tool multiple times on the same layer, and control the blend mode as well.

To want to apply a fill quickly and not caring about a "non-destructive" fill option is quite reasonable: depending on the job or goal, at one time a destructive fill tool is preferable, and at another time a non-destructive fill layer or vector object is the more sensible approach.

It is the same with gradients and how these are used in compositing and image editing: sometimes it is far more efficient to just work destructively, and at other times it is not.

I challenge you to find ANY other image editor on the market, free or commercial, online or offline, that features a gradient tool that lacks these incredibly basic and expected options. I could not (and I looked today just for "fun"). The reason is very simple: because it is such an obvious part of a basic tool set for an image editor to have. No-one thinks twice about it. So I can only conclude that the Affinity devs made a conscious decision to exclude it - although the reasoning for this is entirely mystifying.

[zypher69]

7 hours ago, haakoo said:

Well ok not your cup of tea to use the very simple gradient tool.
Better provide an example of what it is you can do in PS what you can't do in AFphoto
 

HAAKOO - You can dispense with the condescending remarks. Saying someone "better" provide an example does no one any good. Such verbiage only creates a general feeling of hostility and a toxic environment. I think constructive criticism is more effective than condescension. If you know so much about the gradient tool, then perhaps you can provide us with some examples of best practices and the like. No?

[Move Along People]

-

[zypher69]

2 hours ago, haakoo said:

Well I'm not clairvoyant so don't know what you're looking for.
 

If you would have carefully read my initial post and read each reply you would have an idea without having each person "demonstrate" visually what the problems are with the gradient tool. Users shouldn't have to do so many workarounds to achieve the results they're looking for. There's no need for clairvoyance or any such nonsense. Again, you were being condescending by even mentioning clairvoyance to begin with. I'm not here to argue though, so I'll digress. I think most readers of this thread will understand what our grievances are.

[TH3_TWIN]

Thanks for getting back to me Zypher69, like you I have found a soft white / black brush to be best.

 

19 hours ago, haakoo said:

Well I'm not clairvoyant so don't know what you're looking for.
 

Haakoo, here's an example I have made:

I want this final result made from two images:

 

Big wave surfer by Duncan Rawlinson available from Flickr under Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Playing a fish on the Boat Pool, Kinermony by Des Colhoun available from geograph.org.uk under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)

 

In Photoshop, you would import both images and add a mask to the wave. You can blend the images together using a variety of tools - Brush / gradient / Fill.

The tools are destructive to the mask - it's just a mask, it doesn't have any important data on it.

The finished mask looks something like this:

As you can see the mask is complicated, its not a simple gradient.

In my workflow in Photoshop, I primarily use the gradient tool due to its speed. The ability to change radius by clicking and dragging means I don't need to keep changing brush size.

 

In AP, I am restricted to using the paint brush, and whilst I can get a similar result, its not as quick.

 

If I try and use the gradient tool on the mask, it wipes what I have already made using the paint brush.

If I use the gradient tool again on top of the first gradient, it wipes the previous gradient.

 

No one is saying the gradient tool is hard to use, we are saying a single gradient per layers slows down or restricts development.

21 hours ago, Medical Officer Bones said:

But this is not always a desirable or efficient method of working. When the user just wants to quickly block out a mask by combining various gradients, the non-destructive approach becomes a workflow-stopper, because it is a rather cumbersome method.

 

[carl123]

41 minutes ago, TH3_TWIN said:

If I try and use the gradient tool on the mask, it wipes what I have already made using the paint brush.

Why not use the first mask for the paint brush work you did, then add a second mask and add the gradient to that mask?

[TH3_TWIN]

48 minutes ago, carl123 said:

Why not use the first mask for the paint brush work you did, then add a second mask and add the gradient to that mask?

Hi Carl123, the discussion is about creating a complex mask using the gradient tool similar to how it's done in PS.

In PS, I will use dozens of gradients to blend images together, not one. (similar to how the paintbrush works)

 

I don't have this option in AP because it clears the previous gradient.

I could create a new mask layer each time, but this is slow and inconvenient.

I'm not saying "never use the paint brush", I would just like an option to use the gradient tool more efficiently like how the paintbrush affects the mask.

 

[Move Along People]

.

 

[Medical Officer Bones]

@haakoo If you don't me asking: do you understand that this conversation is not about proving whether the effect can be replicated in Photo or not, but rather about the underlying workflow deficiencies?

[photorobw]

There's so much about AP that I like, but the gradient tool may be a game-ender for me. I have twenty-five years of experience with PS and use gradients on quick masks for so much! Black to transparent. I do all my burning and dodging using this method. I composite using it. I've followed the tutorial about gradients in AP and they seem very limited. Quick masks don't work like PS either. Really disappointed. 

[Kenneth Velasquez]

I'm currently on trying before I buy and this is also something I use a lot in PS and will probably be a deal breaker for me too. I hope this is changed. Also, I can't fill an alpha protected layer without it filling everything but that probably deserves its own topic.