Please add Merge to Document Grid/DPI and Merge & Resample Layers (current behavior)

[debraspicher]

I propose renaming & retooling Merge operations/options so that they are more explicit in what they actually do. This has lead to too much confusion and confusion is actually bad. This request stems from this discussion.

Here is the portion of my post in that very relevant thread to help save people precious time:

Quote

In the very least, offering Merge options that are in the context of the actual behavior of Merge, would seem to be in order. "Merge Against Document Grid" (vs Merge & Rasterize), or "Merge and Resample Layers", etc... maybe not those exact operations, but something like that. Something that gives some immediate clue that the programs do not behave the way users of other programs have come to expect when they see Merge.

It's far better to have users to come to the forums or to check documentation to ask "What does this option mean?", versus, "Why does this Merge operation I've used in a dozen other programs look terrible compared to what I'm used to". A more graceful introduction to different functionality if you will rather than making the user feel embarrassed that the functionality is not doing what they expect and they can't figure out why. I feel like the current approach is more insulting.

In short: Us grid-obsessive people would love a Merge option to work with Document Settings, not against. That way the "it's blurry!" people have a safe space they can run to when their layers and their respective dpi settings are completely out of alignment with their worldly desires.

The Merge Against Document Grid is inspired from fde's post referencing current behavior and it's been discovered by many users how the current Merge behavior can be misleading (for those users anyway) and lead to undesirable results. We would like an option so that we can work around this undesirable-ness and make it desirable again (when necessary). I know the grid is technically "imaginary" in Affinity, but it's very real to some of us and we would like to align with it.

May the pixels be with you. Thank you.

[josbin]

+1

[Ssinssrigg]

+1

[JulianB]

+1

[HCE]

+1 if it cures the following ...

I'm in the old-fashioned WYSIWYG camp: I expect my art to look exactly the same after merging layers. Topics like technical limitations, or how much it makes sense from a technical standpoint the way this program operates currently, are all completely irrelevant discussions because of the following points.

A: It's obviously possible to visualize multi-layer compositions correctly while working. You can also take a screenshot from your current screen, that's properly looking and doesn't suffer from degradation. Of course the latter is bound to the resolution of your screen and the zooming factor, but what says that's not possible to simulate under the hood so to speak.

And B: the program that most of us have abandoned, does not suffer from degradation post merging. No matter their differences, degradation should be THE prime objective of any visual arts program. You can't compromise that goal.