"Transform selection" option, please!

[Stokestack]

I've made a rectangular selection and I need to adjust its size to line up with an underlying image. But there are no resizing handles on the marquee and no way to invoke any that resize the selection and not the selected part of the image.

This is a fundamental UI affordance in this kind of application. Its absence is embarrassing.

[Murfee]

Hi @Stokestack, have you tried hitting Q to enter quick mask while you have the move tool selected ? 

It works for me, I can move and resize the selection.

[Dan C]

Thanks for your feedback @Stokestack 

Another workaround, you can use a new, empty pixel layer as a 'donor' layer whilst you resize the Marquee Selection -

[- S -]

Quote

…Another workaround, you can use a new, empty pixel layer as a 'donor' layer whilst you resize the Marquee Selection -

 

@Dan C

Both the "quick mask" technique and the "empty pixel layer" technique make the edges soft when resizing the marquee.

The marquee tools need to be changed to operate in the same way the rectangle and ellipse tools do.  These tools also allow the user to position the first corner while holding down the spacebar and then releasing the spacebar and dragging to select the rest.  The marquee tools in their current form are pretty useless.

 

 

[Stokestack]

Good catch. The unwanted feathering is a deal-breaker.

22 hours ago, Dan C said:

Thanks for your feedback @Stokestack 

Another workaround, you can use a new, empty pixel layer as a 'donor' layer whilst you resize the Marquee Selection

Thanks for that suggestion, but unfortunately it is not a viable workaround either, based on the evidence above.

These absurd problems should not exist in shipping software, let alone software that's been out this long.

I don't see any excuse for the large swath of missing features and image-degrading defects (specifically the blurring or softening of images when performing basic compositing, and the one cited above) in these products. Photo is supposed to serve the needs of image composers, and it fails in ways so varied and fundamental that I am actually considering going back to Adobe's rental rip-off just to ensure that my work isn't ruined.

Affinity should just open-source these products and call it a day. They're clearly not interested in making them tools we can trust.

[Murfee]

20 hours ago, - S - said:

Both the "quick mask" technique and the "empty pixel layer" technique make the edges soft when resizing the marquee.

Very strange! I don't get this effect on my MacBook running Mojave. my edges remain sharp, no softening. @Dan C do you get softening of edges?

 

[Dan C]

23 hours ago, - S - said:

Both the "quick mask" technique and the "empty pixel layer" technique make the edges soft when resizing the marquee.

My apologies, it appears as though this is a logged bug for Windows that I was unaware of when offering this workaround - I can confirm I'm seeing the same results here and I'm in the process of updating the development report currently.

23 hours ago, - S - said:

The marquee tools need to be changed to operate in the same way the rectangle and ellipse tools do.  These tools also allow the user to position the first corner while holding down the spacebar and then releasing the spacebar and dragging to select the rest

I certainly agree that the marquee selection tools could be improved as above, so I will ensure this is logged as an improvement with our team now

4 hours ago, Stokestack said:

They're clearly not interested in making them tools we can trust.

I'm sorry to hear you feel this way - I can assure you that this is not our intent and we're constantly working to improve the apps for our new and existing customers alike.

[Stokestack]

Thanks for your response, Dan. But I don't recall seeing acknowledgment of the blurring problems on "merge down" or the announcement of any intention to fix it. This problem has been widely discussed and it degrades people's work. Missing features are one thing, but damaging image quality is another... which demands immediate resolution. So far we've seen none.

[NotMyFault]

6 hours ago, Dan C said:

On 7/7/2022 at 2:28 PM, - S - said:

Both the "quick mask" technique and the "empty pixel layer" technique make the edges soft when resizing the marquee.

My apologies, it appears as though this is a logged bug for Windows that I was unaware of when offering this workaround - I can confirm I'm seeing the same results here and I'm in the process of updating the development report currently

Sorry to hear this is rated as “bug”. For me it is a feature, and removing it would not cause any real benefit.

 

 

[Stokestack]

28 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

Sorry to hear this is rated as “bug”. For me it is a feature, and removing it would not cause any real benefit.

That makes no sense. The "benefit" is that you can make an exact selection, with no feathering of the edges.

[NotMyFault]

27 minutes ago, Stokestack said:

That makes no sense. The "benefit" is that you can make an exact selection, with no feathering of the edges.

There are many other ways to create "exact" selection (meaning digital - on or off).

But currently there is no other to achieve the current behaviour (as shown in DanC's video) where selection and pixel content are synchronised, even if you repeatedly adjust the selected area and move again.

I agree your request that there should be an additional method to get hard selections - but not on the cost of removing the correct behavior.

Actually, this detail was not even mentioned in your original post. It was about the ability to move (and adjust / rotate) selections - no mentioning about anti-aliasing / feathering included or not. again, I would prefer to make this a user choice.

 

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, Stokestack said:

But I don't recall seeing acknowledgment of the blurring problems on "merge down" or the announcement of any intention to fix it.

Haven't most (possibly all) of those cases been errors in user workflow? Either having mispositioned pixel layers (not on the pixel grid), or having pixel layers that were imported or resized in a way that changed their DPI so it didn't match the document DPI?

[- S -]

1 hour ago, NotMyFault said:

Sorry to hear this is rated as “bug”. For me it is a feature, and removing it would not cause any real benefit.

We are talking about the blurring of the edges being a bug.  If you want soft edges instead of hard edges, you can still do that using various other methods.  I.E.

1) Enter a "Feather" value in the selection tool context menu at the top, or the [Select > Feather] menu.

2) Select the "Anti-alias" tick box from the selection tool context menu at the top.

3) Select "Refine…" from the selection tool context menu at the top, or the [Select > Refine Edges] menu, where it's possible to also enter a feather value.

4) Add a Gaussian Blur directly to the layer mask.  Or, to do it non-destructively, clip the layer mask to the image layer (longer horizontal bar, instead of short vertical bar) and then clip a Gaussian Blur Adjustment Layer to the layer mask to blur the mask.

 

[NotMyFault]

5 minutes ago, - S - said:

We are talking about the blurring of the edges being a bug.  

This thread is about:

On 7/7/2022 at 4:48 AM, Stokestack said:

I've made a rectangular selection and I need to adjust its size to line up with an underlying image. But there are no resizing handles on the marquee and no way to invoke any that resize the selection and not the selected part of the image.

This is a fundamental UI affordance in this kind of application. Its absence is embarrassing.

Your point is maybe related, but a separate story.

[NotMyFault]

On 7/7/2022 at 2:28 PM, - S - said:

 

@Dan C

Both the "quick mask" technique and the "empty pixel layer" technique make the edges soft when resizing the marquee.

The marquee tools need to be changed to operate in the same way the rectangle and ellipse tools do.  These tools also allow the user to position the first corner while holding down the spacebar and then releasing the spacebar and dragging to select the rest.  The marquee tools in their current form are pretty useless.

 

 

For me this behaviour might be unwanted, but technically it is correct. By resizing a PIXEL selection you are actually changing its DPI (reducing it). Look at the transfer panel, and the info below the window title. The reduced DPI leads to the blurriness (by resampling to the higher canvas DPI)

Currently, you can even rotate or sheer a selection using the transfer panel.

So affinity actually gives you exactly what you are doing the move tool / transfer panel. Of course, the result is surprising for most users and not what they want.

But again, I rate this as a feature and want to keep it for my special workflows. And I'm happy to get another way to adjust selections but keeping the DPI. Let the user the choice.

PS: The video (from iPad) explains it better. I created a spare channel and used “edit” on that spare channel to show the effect on stretching a layer causing the edge blurring. Same happens for selections.

[- S -]

3 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

…But currently there is no other to achieve the current behaviour (as shown in DanC's video) where selection and pixel content are synchronised, even if you repeatedly adjust the selected area and move again.

2 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

…But again, I rate this as a feature and want to keep it for my special workflows.

You have your wires crossed – nobody is looking to get rid of that feature.  It's a feature I use myself with digital drawing for example (I.E. select an area – such as a nose – using the Freehand Selection tool and move/scale/rotate the selection slightly with the Move tool so it's better proportioned.

The problem is with the way the Marquee tools work.  I.E. the user is expected to be able to select a pixel perfect area in one go, first time, and without even being able to use any modifier keys such as the spacebar to position it.  The OP is talking about a rectangular selection, however this gets even more tricky when using the Elliptical Marquee tool to select parts of eyes, such as pupils and irises, or wheels for example.  If the user has come from Photoshop, it will be a jarring experience.

A work-a-round is then posted that allows changing it afterwards, however it doesn't work as expected (I.E. it makes the edges soft when resizing the marquee) as either the workaround wasn't originally designed to be used for that particular purpose, or it's possible there's a discrepancy between how it works on different platforms.

The hope is not for the tool makers (Serif) to remove functionality from the workaround (which is a bit like Free Transform), but to look at the problem the tool user is experiencing (with the Marquee tools in this case, not the Move tool) and figure out a better way to do it – maybe even with a [Select > Transform selection] menu item.

[Lisbon]

Does this only happen on Windows?

---

I don't know if this is useful but after resizing the selection and exiting quick mask mode, if you open refine selection and uncheck "Matte Edges" you will see a difference.

And if you output as a Mask you get a sharp edge.

[Old Bruce]

22 hours ago, - S - said:

The problem is with the way the Marquee tools work.  I.E. the user is expected to be able to select a pixel perfect area in one go, first time, and without even being able to use any modifier keys such as the spacebar to position it.  The OP is talking about a rectangular selection, however this gets even more tricky when using the Elliptical Marquee tool to select parts of eyes, such as pupils and irises, or wheels for example.  If the user has come from Photoshop, it will be a jarring experience.

When I need to do something like this I use a shape or even the pen tool to make a vector curve that covers what I want to select then use the Select > Selection from Layer and Delete menu item. Some times I don't delete but edit the shape because I was off the first time drawing it. Set the fill colour to 50% opacity or the layer opacity to 50% in order to see through the shape.

Different application means different tools means different ways of working.

[Stokestack]

23 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

Haven't most (possibly all) of those cases been errors in user workflow? Either having mispositioned pixel layers (not on the pixel grid), or having pixel layers that were imported or resized in a way that changed their DPI so it didn't match the document DPI?

No. The entire underlying image is degraded (and repeatedly) when you merge a small transformed patch down onto it.

23 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

For me this behaviour might be unwanted, but technically it is correct. By resizing a PIXEL selection you are actually changing its DPI (reducing it). Look at the transfer panel, and the info below the window title. The reduced DPI leads to the blurriness (by resampling to the higher canvas DPI)

No. We're talking about the selection marquee, not pixels. The marquee is not dependent on any particular layer; you can make one with no layer selected at all, in fact.

[Stokestack]

3 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

When I need to do something like this I use a shape or even the pen tool to make a vector curve that covers what I want to select then use the Select > Selection from Layer and Delete menu item. Some times I don't delete but edit the shape because I was off the first time drawing it. Set the fill colour to 50% opacity or the layer opacity to 50% in order to see through the shape.

Different application means different tools means different ways of working.

Yes, because making and adjusting a rectangular selection should be the fussy, multi-tool/multi-step pain in the ass you just described. Which it is not in any similar application I've ever seen, from photo-editing applications to the free ones that come with scanners.

[Old Bruce]

17 minutes ago, Stokestack said:

No. We're talking about the selection marquee, not pixels

But it uses the pixel grid when it is made to make its selection. Whole pixels only at the document resolution and when you move (it or resize or rotate it) you'll get transparency happening if it is moved off the grid.

[Stokestack]

I guess the magical technology that makes marquees work as expected in competing applications has been lost in the sands of time.

[NotMyFault]

46 minutes ago, Stokestack said:

The marquee is not dependent on any particular layer; you can make one with no layer selected at all, in fact.

This is half true, half wrong. While creating, a mask starts with canvas DPI, zero for rotation and shear angle.

Once created, the layer is independent from other layers. But is nothing else than a special mask layer, and as such is has a DPI, a rotation, and a shear value as any other pixel (mask) layer. This is the ways it is implemented today. After activating the move tool, you are editing the selection which is virtually nothing else as a mask layer.

Again, i agree that there should be an alternative way, more in line to other apps, where a selections can be transformed, but stays in canvas DPI. But then, selections would more behave like vector layers (which i would love to get), and not like pixel selections.

 

[walt.farrell]

40 minutes ago, Stokestack said:

The entire underlying image is degraded (and repeatedly) when you merge a small transformed patch down onto it.

But generally that's because the "transformed patch" is mispositioned, or has the wrong DPI. The user needs to understand that, and properly handle the patch. I.e., Rasterize it which will correct its position and/or its DPI as needed. Then merge it down.

I do not think this is viewed by Serif as a bug.

[Stokestack]

55 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

But generally that's because the "transformed patch" is mispositioned, or has the wrong DPI. The user needs to understand that, and properly handle the patch. I.e., Rasterize it which will correct its position and/or its DPI as needed. Then merge it down.

I do not think this is viewed by Serif as a bug.

The transformed patch is the one with the so-called "wrong DPI." So it should be resampled to match the underlying layer and merged. Why degrade the underlying layer? I don't know why this same bogus excuse is floated over and over.

And again, Photoshop doesn't have this problem. So it need not exist.