Hold down alt/option while dragging selection to copy

[DesignByAdrian]

I used the marquee tool (M) to select a portion of the image, then Move Tool (V) to drag the selected area.

I expect that when holding ALT/option, I'll drag a copy of the selection, leaving the original behind.

I'd also like that if you used the arrow keys while holding down ALT/option, I'll create continuous copies of the selection. Preferable for pixel art or just repeat a copy. In Photoshop, I can also hold down Shift to copy the selection 10 pixels at a time.

[fde101]

Check the bar along the bottom of the window for hints on what modifiers to use where - in the Affinity applications it is actually the command key that is used to copy objects, rather than option.  Option is used to ignore snapping.

[lepr]

12 hours ago, fde101 said:

[...] in the Affinity applications it is actually the command key that is used to copy objects, rather than option.  Option is used to ignore snapping.

cmd is used for duplicating objects, opt is used both for suppressing snapping and for duplicating objects

I use opt-drag to successfully duplicate objects in Affinity apps out of habit from that being how to duplicate in just about every app on a Mac.

[fde101]

Good point - option actually does work as long as you press the option key before you start dragging.  It also ignores snapping while doing this.

If you press it after you start dragging it ignores snapping, but does not duplicate.

Command causes duplication regardless of whether you press it before or after you start dragging.  Using the command key instead of the option key allows snapping to work while duplicating.

 

HOWEVER, @DesignByAdrian specifically indicated he had made a selection using the marquee tool - this would be a pixel selection rather than an object selection.  Neither option nor command works to duplicate a pixel selection.

Currently, to do this, you would instead choose Layer -> Duplicate Selection (command+J by default) which floats a copy of the selection onto a new layer.  This leaves both an object and a pixel selection of that new layer.  Pressing ESCape clears the pixel selection, after which it can be treated as an ordinary object - at that point you can simply drag the new layer (since it is selected) using the move tool, and if you want additional copies, option or command will work to duplicate it, as I described above.

 

I do think it should be possible to duplicate a pixel selection using option or command as you can with objects - that should almost certainly be fixed - but in the meantime, the workaround with command+J is there.

[lepr]

16 minutes ago, fde101 said:

option actually does work as long as you press the option key before you start dragging.  It also ignores snapping while doing this.

Yes, but if you choose to release the option key after beginning to drag the duplicate, then snapping resumes for the remainder of dragging the duplicate.

[disco solipsism]

I am a long time MacOS and Photoshop user and much of my work is creating interface mockups. Using Command + Option + Drag to duplicate a pixel selection within a single layer is essential to my workflow.

The suggestions above do not tally with my experience. When I use Affinity Photo, Command + Drag will cut and move a selection (but not duplicate). The option and control modifiers only subtract and add to the selection respectively.

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems the only way to achieve what I need is to cut and paste a selection to a new layer, move that layer and then merge it down again - this is a really slow and clunky solution.

The thing is, using Command + Option + Drag to duplicate is a long-standing MacOS paradigm and my muscle memory is so ingrained that I think I will have to return to Photoshop to get my work done.

[loukash]

1 hour ago, disco solipsism said:

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems the only way to achieve what I need is to cut and paste a selection to a new layer, move that layer and then merge it down again - this is a really slow and clunky solution.

This:

On 6/17/2020 at 12:27 AM, fde101 said:

Layer -> Duplicate Selection (command+J by default) which floats a copy of the selection onto a new layer.

Once you've memorized what you need to do, it's really just an extra keyboard shortcut.

1 hour ago, disco solipsism said:

using Command + Option + Drag to duplicate is a long-standing MacOS paradigm and my muscle memory is so ingrained

Fair enough. 25 years Photoshop leaves a lot of muscle memory burned in…
But then again, back in the day I thought I would never get used to Mac OS X either, switching from System 7 (!) over OS 9 to OS X more or less within two years.

[disco solipsism]

Thanks loukash,

I did both those transitions as well 🙂

I will take your advice on board and persevere with this new method and hope it will stick. I'm quite liking Affinity otherwise, and glad to be rid of Creative Suite.

ds

[loukash]

1 minute ago, disco solipsism said:

glad to be rid of Creative Suite

Same here.
On El Capitan I've managed to successfully complete the installation of AI CS5 with all updates, but the internal updater is broken and the Adobe download links are dead (thankfully there's still web.archive.org, see my post on Adobe forums.) But then I had to memorize all the functions that I must not use because otherwise AI would crash…

Still, there are moments when AI to the rescue…

Photoshop CS5.5 actually runs fine, unless you take away Arial from it, otherwise some filters will crash.
InDesign CS5.5 is still pretty stable on El Capitan.

But… eventually I will want to move on to Catalina for good, so Affinity should better catch up. Hey, at least with CS5! I mean, that was like 8 years ago?!

[disco solipsism]

17 minutes ago, loukash said:

Still, there are moments when AI to the rescue…

Ouch. I haven't had to do any vector work lately, but when I do, path operations are usually integral.

[loukash]

3 minutes ago, disco solipsism said:

path operations are usually integral

Luckily there's the VectorStyler beta which has already passed my Divide by Path acid test.
Copy/paste between ADesigner is possible.

 

[AllAppsUser]

Drag select pixels -> drag move + copy pixels (in one action)

Ok, I've been searching these forums trying to sort this out in my head once and for all. It feels like a basic.

It's suggested the Photo way of doing the above (unless I've missed something better) is:

Command + J  = copy selected pixels to a new layer
Then move (with Move tool)

So example. I find a b/w raster logo of a pencil. It's too short. I need to lengthen it. Scaling it elongates the tip and the curve on the other end in a strange way. I need to split it and fill-in the middle - drawing one rectangle in black to fill it in won't do, it because there's a pattern involved. There's not enough to clone once (and stretch) to fill in the gap. I'll need to do it three times - this is not unusual in exercises like this.

So the AF Photo way (bold is where the two approaches differ):

1. Paste
2. Rasterise
3. Drag select
4. command + J
5. move
6. command + J
7. move
8. command + J
9. move
10. flatten (yeah, not always necessary)
11. Export

The way I'm used to:

1. Paste
2. Drag select
3. Drag with cmd + alt
4. Drag with cmd + alt
5. Drag with cmd + alt
6. Export

Got it now, what the problem here is?

Multiply that over 10 icons to change and you've got 100 actions instead of 50. The more actions, the more opportunity for something to go wrong at some point resulting in a redo and even more faffing.

I'm sure affinity will "get there eventually"., until they do, basic bread and butter stuff like this will stop studios moving away from Adobe. I'd not take the plunge and give my design team this headache to deal with - no way. You can keep your fancy stuff.

 

[loukash]

1 hour ago, ProDesigner said:

there's a pattern involved. There's not enough to clone once (and stretch) to fill in the gap. I'll need to do it three times

Something like this?

1. duplicate the pencil & move the copy to the final position
2. select, copy & paste a reasonable part of the pattern; pastes on top as a new layer
3. unselect marquee & switch to the Move tool
4. duplicate the pattern bit to the new position
5. power duplicate to fill in the gap
6. export

[AllAppsUser]

On 5/15/2021 at 2:08 PM, loukash said:

Something like this?

1. duplicate the pencil & move the copy to the final position
2. select, copy & paste a reasonable part of the pattern; pastes on top as a new layer
3. unselect marquee & switch to the Move tool
4. duplicate the pattern bit to the new position
5. power duplicate to fill in the gap
6. export

You've not started at the same point as me @loukash. And I broke down everything that is a distinct action rather than combined several. Don't think 'steps', think 'actions'.

I'm not sure if you're trying to demonstrate the number of actions needed is equivalent, or suggesting another step-by-step way of doing it.

This is your suggestion with the same methodology of representation I've used applied:

1. Paste
2. Rasterise (See 3)
3. duplicate the whole(?) art (I assume drag with alt, so it's one action) <<< is this to rasterise??
4. select (1 action)
5. copy (another distinct action)
6. paste (another distinct action)
7. deselect marquee
8. select move tool
9. duplicate pattern to the new position (I assume 1 action drag with alt key)
10. power duplicate
11. merge (May not be necessary... in my usual workflow, there's no extra layers created in the first place)
12. Export

It's still a busy way of doing something that currently takes me 6 actions in total to complete.

 

[loukash]

Just now, ProDesigner said:

just suggesting another way of doing it

This. I was using emphasis for a reason.

1 minute ago, ProDesigner said:

• copy (another distinct action)
• paste (another distinct action)

Should be:

• Duplicate Selection

I forgot about that command.

3 minutes ago, ProDesigner said:

It's still a busy way of doing something that currently takes me 6 steps in total to complete

It also always depends on the original material to begin with. Perhaps you may want to provide a sample document?

Then there's also the Clone Brush Tool:
Create e.g. a square 100% hard brush (takes a few seconds to set up the first time, then it's ready for years to come), option-click to load the pattern, then clone away, skipping all the "select-duplicate-drag" brouhaha altogether.

~~~

That all said, select-cmd-option-drag is definitely a handy workflow for "casual" cases and I'd like to have that added to Affinity as well. But so far, I have never used it for anything "pixel perfect".

[loukash]

22 minutes ago, loukash said:

Then there's also the Clone Brush Tool:
Create e.g. a square 100% hard brush (takes a few seconds to set up the first time, then it's ready for years to come), option-click to load the pattern, then clone away, skipping all the "select-duplicate-drag" brouhaha altogether.

Something like this:

Quick and easy. (Well, except for the awkward click-drag-press-shift-to-constrain workflow… )

[Alfred]

1 hour ago, ProDesigner said:

• copy (another distinct action)
• paste (another distinct action)

 

48 minutes ago, loukash said:

Should be:

• Duplicate Selection

It shouldn’t matter here, but please note that these alternatives are not equivalent. The ‘Copy’ command replaces the current content of the clipboard; the ‘Duplicate’ command bypasses the clipboard, so its current content remains undisturbed.

[loukash]

Just now, Alfred said:

The ‘Copy’ command replaces the current content of the clipboard; the ‘Duplicate’ command bypasses the clipboard, so its current content remains undisturbed.

Good point.
But not the point here when all that counts for @ProDesigner is the number of steps…

[Alfred]

35 minutes ago, loukash said:

Good point.
But not the point here when all that counts for @ProDesigner is the number of steps…

Agreed, which is why I wrote:

37 minutes ago, Alfred said:

It shouldn’t matter here, but ...

 

[AllAppsUser]

3 hours ago, loukash said:

....all that counts for @ProDesigner is the number of steps…

It's so hard to communicate isn't it. Was it Napoleon Bonaparte who said something about everything always being misunderstood?

So, to clarify....

I  (and others above) have a way of working, currently in Adobe PhotoShop, that is super efficient. The topic of discussion here is that Affinity Photo cannot support the same degree of efficiency.

What counts is efficiency. Time = money.

So how do we evidence efficiency here? A time and motion study (what are they called nowadays?). Whatever it's called, it's a study/analysis that lists all the distinct actions needed to complete a task - 1, 2, 3 style - really clear.

Above, I've compared using a set of actions that are well established in the industry (as another contributer has said already) versus... the Affinity Photo way. Setting it out 1-2-3 stylie allows direct comparison in a compellingly really-really clear way.

I'm happy for anyone to challenge me.. pointing out an AF Photo method that is AS efficient that I've missed (here's hoping still).

Conclusion  (at this point in the thread): Photo does fail here (as others have pointed out) and we now have good evidence demonstrating it above.

Now, there is a clear Business Case for correcting it. The clear case?  "A set of actions that are well established in the industry" and therefore a standard in efficiency expected by a high value customer segment. If Serif want the high value customer segment that comprises commercial studios, they will have to fix this demonstratable inefficiency. Whether that is with an alternative equally efficient set of new actions, or the established one's is up to them to make the call. The important thing is: fixing it.

If I do establish the design studio that's being discussed in my neck of the woods, will I invest in Affinity? In a word: No - because of the basics Serif just don't grasp... like: efficiency. I'm an avid fan of Affinity for fun unpressured 'personal projects'... but not for production environments.

Hope that helps.

[DesignByAdrian]

I can't believe we're still having this conversation one year later.

I don't know how much Adobe has patented their tools, but simple feature like this, and the pen tool in Designer, should be closer to how the Adobe counterparts work. Not only because people are familiar with them, but because their implementations are, in fact, easier to use.

[loukash]

1 hour ago, DesignByAdrian said:

the pen tool in Designer, should be closer to how the Adobe counterparts

Thanks, but no thanks.
There are many reasons why I don't miss Adobe's workflows at all.

1 hour ago, DesignByAdrian said:

Not only because people are familiar with them, but because their implementations are, in fact, easier to use.

Your mileage may vary, of course.
Just don't expect all "people" to see it the same way you do.

That's why it would be wise if Serif would implement more options to make the transition easier for all those Adobe-indoctrinated victims.

[AllAppsUser]

I find the pen tool in Designer (iPad) excellent. I can't comment on the Desktop Pen Tool because I've hardly used it, tbh. The pen tool is much closer to FreeHand's which set the bar very high IMHO. I always found Adobe's a bit frustrating after Macromedia's. The one tool people struggle with, in my experience, is the pen tool.

It all depends on who Serif want to sell their stuff to, in the end. There's a tension for business between copying the competition and trying to innovate without alienating potential customers. It's a tricky path, I've tried to plough it myself.

My own view is that I'm open to things being 'better'.. different is not automatically 'better'. And yes, the more ways to do the same thing, the more a creative can work intuitively. There are many things that Serif have had some good ideas about and I commend them. But they are not perfect or 'right' on everything.

I'm an 'open' person, who respects everyone's views, and appraise everything (whether rooted in past processes or not) without prejudice. I began my career using Macromedia's products, then moved over to Adobe's. Now I'm using Affinity, and haven't touched Adobe in months.

I'm in a position to do so right now because I'm working entirely on personal projects. It would be great if Affinity was usable by commercial studios, because I'd like to use it in a production environment too, but it's not. And this is a point worth noting... there's a big investment professionals make in software.  If a business is to grow in a market such as this, it's pragmatic to understand it and not dismiss it. One day @loukash, you may be faced with the same thing.

[GarryP]

@ProDesigner

I think you might be asking for the ‘wrong’ functionality.
From what you have said, it sounds like you should be asking to be able to do this:

• Select a section of the image;
• Move the selected section of the image;
• Tell the software to ‘fill the gap’ (a bit like some kind of ‘auto-inpainting’).

Would that be better than what you can currently do in either Photo or Photoshop?
If so, you could make a request for that instead.
If the developers like the idea, and it’s implemented well, then that may be another reason to come over to Photo.

[Alfred]

4 minutes ago, GarryP said:

From what you have said, it sounds like you should be asking to be able to do this:

• Select a section of the image;
• Move the selected section of the image;
• Tell the software to ‘fill the gap’ (a bit like some kind of ‘auto-inpainting’).

We can already perform ‘auto-inpainting’ of a pixel selection, so we can:

• Select a section of the image;
• Copy the selected section of the image;
• ’Edit > Fill > Inpaint’;
• Paste the copied section as a new layer;
• Move the new layer.

The two extra steps may not be acceptable to @ProDesigner but they’re both pretty quick.