Affinity Photo, Inconsistency with the Marquee tool and resizing it with the transform.

[CyberAngel]

This is on Windows 11, I will attach a link that has the files necessary and a video explaining the issues.

The problem is that as a new user, I have come accustomed to selecting something, changing that selection via resize handles, and/or manipulating its position and size. Which in Affinity Photo's case causes unexpected results, in some cases 3 different results.

I have also made a suggestion, that the marquee tool can be manipulated via handles, an example of this would be like this

 

I have attached the link below to the uploaded file to show what I am doing and the different results that I get.

 

 

[Sean P]

Hi CyberAngel,

Thanks for letting us know about this issue. It is something we do have logged and I will pass your comments and suggestions over to development, as I do agree there needs to be a much better way to resize a marquee.

[CyberAngel]

5 minutes ago, Sean P said:

Hi CyberAngel,

Thanks for letting us know about this issue. It is something we do have logged and I will pass your comments and suggestions over to development, as I do agree there needs to be a much better way to resize a marquee.

Thanks for the information Sean, looking forward to seeing it implemented.

[Brian_J]

7 hours ago, Sean P said:

I do agree there needs to be a much better way to resize a marquee.

I just want to make sure the full scope of the issue is clear. There are two issues being raised:

1. Ability to easily change the dimensions of a pixel selection, e.g., add edge handles to the selection marquee.
2. Ability to edit the dimensions of a pixel selection and use the selection to create a pixel-perfect copy of an object/layer.

Currently, if a selection is made with a Marquee Tool and the selection size is edited in the Transform panel or using Quick Mask mode, when the selection is used to copy an object, the resulting pasted object is feathered. From what I can tell, the variance between the initial selection and the final, edited size of the selection affects the amount of feathering.

Attached is a file showing the issue.

2023-05-23 Pixel Selection Transform Issue.afphoto

[walt.farrell]

14 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

I just want to make sure the full scope of the issue is clear. There are two issues being raised:

1. Ability to easily change the dimensions of a pixel selection, e.g., add edge handles to the selection marquee.

That is appropriate for a Feature Request, rather than a Bug Report.

[Brian_J]

10 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

That is appropriate for a Feature Request, rather than a Bug Report.

It wasn't clear to me from Sean's response that the feathering issue was clear. I may have misunderstood Sean's response, but I got the impression he was only referring to making it easier to edit selections by doing something like adding handles, which the OP suggested.

[Sean P]

11 hours ago, Brian_J said:

It wasn't clear to me from Sean's response that the feathering issue was clear. I may have misunderstood Sean's response, but I got the impression he was only referring to making it easier to edit selections by doing something like adding handles, which the OP suggested.

My apologies - I did indeed mean the feathering issue is something we do have logged and have bumped with development. I have also created a separate issue with regards to better ways to transform your selection as well.

[Circulus]

1 hour ago, Sean P said:

My apologies - I did indeed mean the feathering issue is something we do have logged and have bumped with development. I have also created a separate issue with regards to better ways to transform your selection as well.

Since this is a longstanding issue according to the tags it has attached.
Maybe, at least, for the marquee or other rectangular selections, make use of the code for the (vector) crop tool as a starting point.
In my test in the other thread, a vector rectangle doesn't give the issue with feathering and can be resized to accomplish the right proportions.
I tried out both the vector and normal crop and it gave the right proportions and no feathering.

[Graeme10]

Has this made any progress? As a new user on the trial I am baffled by the inability to perform the simple task of resizing a marquee with handles. Currently it seems all you can do is move the marquee or make a new one. I do see that it can be done by going into other tools but that is an absurd method. This function is standard in all the other software I use, including GIMP.

I see that this issue has been mentioned for several years.

Is it a deal breaker?

For me and the use I have it probably is.

[GarryP]

Welcome to the forums @Graeme10

This thread has been given two official tags, which can be seen under the thread title.

When a thread has been given an official tag that means that Serif have logged it in their system to, at least, be considered for further work.

When something changes in regard to the situation as described in the thread, the Affinity Info Bot will make a posting in the thread explaining what has happened and what can be done about it (often simply upgrading to the latest version).

If you want to know when a situation mentioned in an officially-tagged thread has changed, all you need to do is follow that thread and you will get a notification if/when this happens.

You can follow a thread by going to the top of any page of that thread and pressing the “Follow” button at the right of the thread header.

Edited October 15, 2024 by GarryP
Added more details.

[Brian_J]

2 hours ago, GarryP said:

If you want to know when a situation mentioned in an officially-tagged thread has changed, all you need to do is follow that thread and you will get a notification if/when this happens.

I think it’s also beneficial to reply to aging topics — as @Graeme10 did — that have been logged/tagged by Serif to increase visibility of the issue and help Serif prioritize. One of the tags on this topic appears to be over 3.5 years old.

[GarryP]

15 hours ago, Brian_J said:

I think it’s also beneficial to reply to aging topics ... that have been logged/tagged by Serif to increase visibility of the issue and help Serif prioritize.

Beneficial to whom?

Do you have any evidence that doing so has a noticeable influence on Serif’s decision-making/prioritisation processes?

[Brian_J]

On 10/16/2024 at 12:26 AM, GarryP said:

Do you have any evidence that doing so has a noticeable influence on Serif’s decision-making/prioritisation processes?

Moderators often advise that they have “bumped” internally logged bugs after forum topics that have a bug tag assigned to them receive additional replies, leading me to believe additional replies may affect how bugs are prioritized.

[CyberAngel]

Considering how many updates has been released since this was reported, I would question why this is still an issue?

 

@Sean P

[GarryP]

2 hours ago, Brian_J said:

leading me to believe additional replies may affect     <my emphasis>

I think you might be mistaking supposition, or even hope, for evidence.

Maybe you are right and I’m wrong, or maybe you are wrong and I’m right.

I don’t think either of us really knows for sure because neither of us can see the details, or the ‘wide-angle’ view, of the situation.

I’ve seen some bugs fixed very quickly, but I’ve seen way more that haven’t been fixed for many years regardless of re-reporting and ‘bumping’.

I think my final thought on this would be that I really hope you are right – if bugs can get fixed more quickly then I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

[Brian_J]

6 minutes ago, GarryP said:

I don’t think either of us really knows for sure because neither of us can see the details, or the ‘wide-angle’ view, of the situation.

Agree. I'm making an assumption about why Serif staff "bumps" bugs that were previously logged.

Maybe a moderator can shed some light on this for us.