Free Transform, Perspective & Warp Tools

[NoSi]

This ist still not the same:

It makes a difference if I change the frame or it's contents to perspective.  You can see the difference by looking to the frame marks: In the video they are transformed into the perspective while Photo transformed the content into the rectangular frame and changed the content from text to pixel:

[MikeK36]

Can you please implement a "mould" tool (Xara Graphic Designer) or "envelope" tool (Corel).

The sample attached is from Xara

[fde101]

On 6/11/2020 at 7:06 AM, NoSi said:

changed the content from text to pixel

The current tool in Affinity Photo is raster-based so it will always convert anything which is vector (such as text) into a pixel layer.

You can work around this to some degree by using the perspective live filter instead of the tool (it works almost the same way); this allows the original content to be maintained in an editable format but will still rasterize the output from the filter when exporting to some other format (or printing).

[duh-G]

Pointing out different apps, or work arounds(fudging something in a pixel based approach) is a distraction from the main request for a true Free Transform tool. I've used other vector based software for decades, so yes I can figure out some crazy work around too. I prefer working in a vector based precise approach within Designer. Hell that is why I purchased Designer!  Being able to precisely adjust in vector allows for the layering and adjustments of a well constructed VECTOR image. Converting a vector element to pixels to adjust(Freely), then having to redraw, redo, different software, or whatever multiple steps is ludicrous. A direct simple powerful work flow, not some rube goldbergian nightmare.

[Knute5]

It's "on the road map" and has been for years. We're waiting on the tarmac in the plane repeatedly being told, "20 more minutes" until takeoff. Such a great tool otherwise, but literally can't relinquish my monthly Adobe tax for this and a few other features.

[NoSi]

I switched from Adobe to  Photoline (https://www.pl32.com/) years ago. Its surface takes a little getting used to, it lacks the elegance of competitors like the Affinity tools. But it offers a functionality in the pixel and vector range that is unparalleled. Especially in the functionality of the basic operations a lot can be done directly, for which other programs need "wizards" that convert data so that the goal can be achieved, while Photoline always uses the original data. And yet it remains fast.

"Photo" offers some functions that are nicely solved for pixel processing. Because of the current special offer price I bought it - I would never have paid the normal price. With the "Designer", even the special offer price seems too expensive to me, when I compare its capabilities with Photoline.

Only "Publisher" is really interesting (for me), because there are some things where Photoline (currently) is still lagging behind. However, what the "Publisher" offers as single functionality (DTP), is at least partially available in Photoline - but it is only advertised as a "skill". The developers don't describe it as "core competence".

I have never regretted the step away from Adobe (InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, ...) to Photoline, I could do all tasks and wishes with it so far and at a comparable price to one affinity product.

Honestly, I would have even thought about the "Publisher" if I had to pay the normal price. But, to be honest, the "Publisher" is also worth its normal price in any case.

From my point of view, the Publisher is a good product, Photo "quite nice", the Designer I think is largely useless.

[dominik]

5 hours ago, NoSi said:

the Designer I think is largely useless.

Hi @NoSi,

I assume you mean 'largely useless to me'. I myself find AD very usefull and it replaced for most of my work ID and Xara Designer Pro. I do admit that there are some features still missing that have been discussed here over and over. In case I need these I do have workarounds.

Cheers,
d.

[Jowday]

9 hours ago, dominik said:

Hi @NoSi,

I assume you mean 'largely useless to me'. I myself find AD very usefull and it replaced for most of my work ID and Xara Designer Pro. I do admit that there are some features still missing that have been discussed here over and over. In case I need these I do have workarounds.

Cheers,
d.

Of course he did. Why do every new post here asking for improvements have to be followed by "It is good enough for me" posts from a small circle of forum users? Everybody understands the concept of workarounds - you are not bringing new knowledge into the light. Somebody understands the concept of efficiency, possibilities, complexity and time as well. Peoples requirements are different. How on earth does it matter to people with bigger and more advanced needs than you that your more simple requirements were met? And how will Affinity evolve if hobbyists block every request for improvements?

And try to imagine the customer entering this forum meeting this attitude again and again. Ambitions are suffocated in here.

[dominik]

14 minutes ago, Jowday said:

Of course he did.

 

I wonder how you can answer in place to some other person. You don't know. You assume.

 

Quote

you are not bringing new knowledge into the light

So do you by posting images (without any further text) that seem to be meant as a comment of any kind without bringing any 'new knowledge into the light'. I'm not saying this is wrong. I'm just saying what you allow to yourself as a contribution to the forum you should be able to bear with others.

 

14 minutes ago, Jowday said:

And try to imagine the customer entering this forum meeting this attitude again and again. 

This is something you can ask yourself.

I do respect you as a fellow forumster. But please do not judge me or my requirements that you do not know.

Cheers,
d.

[F-Zimba]

Yes please, this is an important feature in my workflow, any kind of distortion, from basic to a non destructive/envelope like distortion would be appreciated. keep it up with the good work guys...

[AffinityMakesMeWonder]

15 hours ago, NoSi said:

I switched from Adobe to  Photoline (https://www.pl32.com/) years ago. Its surface takes a little getting used to, it lacks the elegance of competitors like the Affinity tools. But it offers a functionality in the pixel and vector range that is unparalleled. Especially in the functionality of the basic operations a lot can be done directly, for which other programs need "wizards" that convert data so that the goal can be achieved, while Photoline always uses the original data. And yet it remains fast.

"Photo" offers some functions that are nicely solved for pixel processing. Because of the current special offer price I bought it - I would never have paid the normal price. With the "Designer", even the special offer price seems too expensive to me, when I compare its capabilities with Photoline.

Only "Publisher" is really interesting (for me), because there are some things where Photoline (currently) is still lagging behind. However, what the "Publisher" offers as single functionality (DTP), is at least partially available in Photoline - but it is only advertised as a "skill". The developers don't describe it as "core competence".

I have never regretted the step away from Adobe (InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, ...) to Photoline, I could do all tasks and wishes with it so far and at a comparable price to one affinity product.

Honestly, I would have even thought about the "Publisher" if I had to pay the normal price. But, to be honest, the "Publisher" is also worth its normal price in any case.

From my point of view, the Publisher is a good product, Photo "quite nice", the Designer I think is largely useless.

I downloaded this Photoliner (30 day free trial) on my 27" iMac-5K, BUT, I'm not impressed at all...

You can't even import RAW-files?

It look like a boring application on Windows 95 from the 90's - uggly as hell!

Sure, it can make a lot of work, but, on Mac it's not my kind of tool to use...

[NoSi]

18 hours ago, dominik said:

assume you mean 'largely useless to me'.

Please, do not shorten sentences in a meaning changing way. I wrote »From my point of view, […]Designer I think is largely useless.«  As you do, I can only speak for myself. Therefore

9 hours ago, Jowday said:

Of course he did.

ist absolutely correct.

7 hours ago, AffinityMakesMeSmile said:

You can't even import RAW-files?

Sure, you can. It supports complex import/development functions, image management, ranking, sorting, organizing, … – things Photo does not have at all.

7 hours ago, AffinityMakesMeSmile said:

It look like a boring application on Windows 95 from the 90's - uggly as hell!

I do not use a hammer because it is so nice and lovely to look at. I want to pound nails into the wall with it without having my hands hurting afterwards. Therefore, I personally put more value on the functionality of a tool than on its appearance. And as I wrote, I am aware of this » Its surface takes a little getting used to, it lacks the elegance of competitors like the Affinity tools.«

(Note: The appearance is the result of a one year lasting intensive discussion between "power users" and development that "as is" is the best compromise for productivity. And that functionality is the main focus. If you have an idea how to put the big bunch of tools into a nicer surface, I am sure you're welcome. They are open for that!)

But please, don't get me wrong: If I would think that Affinity Photo, Designer, Publisher are scrap I would not spend time in this forum that - at least here in the thread originally - is about improving the products. And I never would have bought them however cheap they may be offered. Depending to personal needs Designer and Photo may be enough. But as far as I understand this part of the forum we talk about improvement, not about being satisfied with things available. "Being satisfied" is destructive for me in this context.

Therefore I think it is quite appropriate to compare tools from the same price range. It is also worth considering whether a nicer look can replace missing functionality or whether different target groups possibly are addressed. When I look at the advertising of Affinity, the products should definitely address the professional segment. Then, for my taste, abilities of these products should also be offered, which competitors already had 20 (!) years ago.

[dominik]

1 hour ago, NoSi said:

Please, do not shorten sentences in a meaning changing way. I wrote »From my point of view, […]Designer I think is largely useless.«

Hi @NoSi,

thank you for making your point clear. This certainly helps me to understand you better.

Cheers,
d.

[AffinityMakesMeWonder]

2 hours ago, NoSi said:

Please, do not shorten sentences in a meaning changing way. I wrote »From my point of view, […]Designer I think is largely useless.«  As you do, I can only speak for myself. Therefore

ist absolutely correct.

Sure, you can. It supports complex import/development functions, image management, ranking, sorting, organizing, … – things Photo does not have at all.

I do not use a hammer because it is so nice and lovely to look at. I want to pound nails into the wall with it without having my hands hurting afterwards. Therefore, I personally put more value on the functionality of a tool than on its appearance. And as I wrote, I am aware of this » Its surface takes a little getting used to, it lacks the elegance of competitors like the Affinity tools.«

(Note: The appearance is the result of a one year lasting intensive discussion between "power users" and development that "as is" is the best compromise for productivity. And that functionality is the main focus. If you have an idea how to put the big bunch of tools into a nicer surface, I am sure you're welcome. They are open for that!)

But please, don't get me wrong: If I would think that Affinity Photo, Designer, Publisher are scrap I would not spend time in this forum that - at least here in the thread originally - is about improving the products. And I never would have bought them however cheap they may be offered. Depending to personal needs Designer and Photo may be enough. But as far as I understand this part of the forum we talk about improvement, not about being satisfied with things available. "Being satisfied" is destructive for me in this context.

Therefore I think it is quite appropriate to compare tools from the same price range. It is also worth considering whether a nicer look can replace missing functionality or whether different target groups possibly are addressed. When I look at the advertising of Affinity, the products should definitely address the professional segment. Then, for my taste, abilities of these products should also be offered, which competitors already had 20 (!) years ago.

Ok, thanks for an advance and deep explanation of your opinion on Photoline...

But, how do you open RAW-files then?

I just tried to just use the Open command in the files menu, but, without success... My Sony RX100-VI RAW-files are greyed out when trying to open them...?

So, perhaps I give Photoline another try this evening...

[NoSi]

→ Edit → Options → Extended → DigiCam Focal: RX 100 is not in the list (to be more precise: in my list). 

Press Help (Windows: F1) in the dialog and read the description how to add your camera (focal length required):

Then you should be able to load your raw files with → File → Open and → File → Browse…, too.

Generally, "F1" is a useful companion because it offers context sensual support in almost any menu or dialog.

[Xzenor]

This is really basic functionality. I'm completely amazed that this does not exist in AD.

[Medical Officer Bones]

On 6/14/2020 at 2:37 AM, AffinityMakesMeSmile said:

But, how do you open RAW-files then?

I just dragged and dropped a RX100-VII ARW file into the window,, which is a newer model, and it worked - so your file should be supported as well. Btw, PL's raw developer is non-destructive. It is also possible to drag a file into the window while holding down the alt/option modifier key to create a externally linked smart object (called a "placeholder" layer.

...getting off-topic now. I hope free transform of vector objects/layers will be added by the time v2.0 is out. And a non-destructive Blend/morph option. And true vector brushes. And vector patterns.  And many other basic features still missing.

[Jeremiah Lee]

I ran into the need for this exact feature last week. Disappointing to not have it, as I had to go back to Illustrator.

[AffinityMakesMeWonder]

3 hours ago, Jeremiah Lee said:

I ran into the need for this exact feature last week. Disappointing to not have it, as I had to go back to Illustrator.

What do you mean with "going back to Illustrator"?

Have you bought Affinity Designer although you can run it io days in full version in trial mode?

Why not leave Illustrator and go all-in with Affinity Designer/Inkscape instead?

Do you wanna get free from subscription, or, what’s wrong with Illustrator?

[Xzenor]

I honestly don't get why it's missing.. this should have been on the list when they were listing basic necessary features during the design phase.

[Jeremiah Lee]

1 hour ago, AffinityMakesMeSmile said:

What do you mean with "going back to Illustrator"?

Have you bought Affinity Designer although you can run it io days in full version in trial mode?

Why not leave Illustrator and go all-in with Affinity Designer/Inkscape instead?

Do you wanna get free from subscription, or, what’s wrong with Illustrator?

Your response feels like you are blaming me for the feature not existing and for having a product requirement.

Yes, I had already purchased Affinity Designer. I have used Affinity Designer for a few projects now. In this particular project, I needed to do a perspective/warp transform. I don't do illustration work often, but I needed to for this particular project. I would love to go "all-in" with Affinity Designer, but it lacked this critical feature for a particular project. Inkscape has some version of this functionality, but it is difficult and counter intuitive to use compared to Illustrator. In general, I dislike Inkscape because of its poor usability. I dislike Illustrator because of its pricing model, but Illustrator has had this feature for as long as I have used it.

[NoSi]

2 hours ago, Jeremiah Lee said:

Why not leave Illustrator and go all-in with Affinity Designer/Inkscape instead?

Ehem… – I have a very very old version of Illustrator  ( V 9 – Released 2000) and I am sorry having to say that, but even in compare to this totally outdated version of Illustrator in my opinion Designer is no real competitor. Because of Illustrator pricing I switched to another tool (as mentioned above Photoline). From my point of view Designer is far, far away from  that I expect as »basic standards of vector editing«.

[AffinityMakesMeWonder]

10 hours ago, Jeremiah Lee said:

Your response feels like you are blaming me for the feature not existing and for having a product requirement.

Yes, I had already purchased Affinity Designer. I have used Affinity Designer for a few projects now. In this particular project, I needed to do a perspective/warp transform. I don't do illustration work often, but I needed to for this particular project. I would love to go "all-in" with Affinity Designer, but it lacked this critical feature for a particular project. Inkscape has some version of this functionality, but it is difficult and counter intuitive to use compared to Illustrator. In general, I dislike Inkscape because of its poor usability. I dislike Illustrator because of its pricing model, but Illustrator has had this feature for as long as I have used it.

Ok, I understand your statenent, but, as you say here, you don’t do any illustration works often, but still you are ready to return to subscription monthly on Illustrator (because Affinity Designer lacks)?

some people here says that Inkscape is the best thing since sliced breads, so, your opinion on Inkscape may be in minority

 

[NoSi]

2 hours ago, AffinityMakesMeSmile said:

Ok, I understand your statenent, but, as you say here, you don’t do any illustration works often, but still you are ready to return to subscription monthly on Illustrator (because Affinity Designer lacks)?

some people here says that Inkscape is the best thing since sliced breads, so, your opinion on Inkscape may be in minority

 

I draw a different conclusion from this:

• Even a few projects are apparently worth the use of a rental product because designers lack the required basic skills.
• Those who have to earn money with their work are willing to pay money for solutions, but not for "attempts".
• If you are amazed about paying monthly fee for a product like Illustrator, also talking disparagingly about Inkscape, you should take in regard, that Inkscape is free, what makes it very competitive.
• Disadvantages of a tool are relative if I have paid nothing for it.
• A cheaper product in compare to a more expensive one is objectively more expensive, if it is unsuitable for the requirements.
• Albert Einstein was in an absolute minority with his theory of relativity. Yet he was right...*

 

_{* I don't want to give a review of Inkscape with this. I'll only take the liberty of pointing out that "majority" alone does not guarantee a claim to "being right".}

[CLC]

46 minutes ago, NoSi said:

I draw a different conclusion from this:

• Even a few projects are apparently worth the use of a rental product because designers lack the required basic skills.
• Those who have to earn money with their work are willing to pay money for solutions, but not for "attempts".
• If you are amazed about paying monthly fee for a product like Illustrator, also talking disparagingly about Inkscape, you should take in regard, that Inkscape is free, what makes it very competitive.
• Disadvantages of a tool are relative if I have paid nothing for it.
• A cheaper product in compare to a more expensive one is objectively more expensive, if it is unsuitable for the requirements.
• Albert Einstein was in an absolute minority with his theory of relativity. Yet he was right...*

 

_{* I don't want to give a review of Inkscape with this. I'll only take the liberty of pointing out that "majority" alone does not guarantee a claim to "being right".}

This explanation should be set in a stone. Thank you so much @NoSi.