Rasterize automatically

[nezumi]

I am not sure if it was ever discussed here, couldn't find the option for it either.

You see I have NEVER need for using "image". Never - I ALWAYS use rasterized pixel pictures. Fact that some pictures are imported as "image" is only a nuisance for me. Selecting and trying to delete part of image - boom, its all gone because it was "image" not "pixel". It happens so many times a day it really became annoying. I understand people have use for it - but would be absolutely fantastic if there was option (assistant maybe?) to ALWAYS automatically rasterize image. Or assistant option that rasterizes image automatically if you are performing some action thats not possible on image? Please. Honestly, it would be ENORMOUS help if there was option - turned off by default to not mess with people who actually are using "image" - but something that would allow NEVER to use "image" and always "pixel".

And if such option exists I would greatly appreciate to point me to it.

[loukash]

7 minutes ago, nezumi said:

And if such option exists I would greatly appreciate to point me to it.

Don't place.

Open.
There's your pixel layer right away.

[Bit Disappointed]

I fully understand your frustration. I'm fortunate enough to have Photoshop in my toolset, so I don't encounter this image-pixel issue in Photo, which recurs over and over again. I remember it all too clearly.

However, I'm afraid that Serif has moved - and you who are affected by this totally opaque and almost uncommunicated difference - into really deep waters. The lack of automation and usability is a huge problem here. Automated conversion will probably be just as extreme. I think that Serif needs to embark on a really UX-driven rethinking of concept and user interface regarding image and pixel layers.

I remember - and occasionally discover in Designer - that many features require one thing or another to work - but don't communicate that when you try to perform an operation on it. The user interface is no help.

Apologists and fanboys defending this very theoretical construct are of no help either, nor is the need to learn the programs as if it were GIMP. It's incredible how people can so fervently defend a concept that has resulted in so many support requests here.

The most elementary mistakes are made right on the surface. I paste something into Affinity. The first term, image, doesn't suggest much. To transform it into pixels, I have to choose rasterize; now we're up to three terms the customer must fully understand how works in Affinity. Don't try to convince me that the small object type icon makes the customers significantly wiser. The very few visual hints are barely noticeable, while the textual is pure engineering jargon. "Convert to pixels" would be fine or "Render as Pixels".

This user interface and journey in Photo are not designed by genuine and professional UX designers. The architecture and user interface are cobbled together with elastic bands from the 80s.

[Old Bruce]

31 minutes ago, nezumi said:

And if such option exists I would greatly appreciate to point me to it.

No available option but you could set up a keyboard shutcut for Rasterize and Trim. It is in the Layers section in the Shortcuts. Here on my Mac the keyboard shortcut for Place is set to Shift + Command + M, so if I were so inclined I would set the rasterize to a combination that is very close to those keys.

Perhaps there could be an entry in the Assistant for rasterizing images when placed, but not raw files when linked or embedded. I myself would never use that setting.

[nezumi]

@loukash Yeah. One. Problem is that often I have need to bring into one composition say 20 different pictures. If I had to open 20 different pictures and then have to copy/paste 20 of them into one composition - its easier to place them and rasterize in mass. And the whole issue is - I dont want to be forced to additional, frankly unnecessary clicks for option I never need.

@Bit Arts - or should I say "Bit Harsh" 😉

I have Affinity from the very first day on PC. I really love using it and I have abandoned Photoshop for it didn't looked back. But this "image" thing is really driving me mad from the very beginning. And I understand that somebody, somewhere, somehow has use for that "image" thing. I honestly cant imagine single use for it in what I do. Not one. I will never need it it seems. All it does for me personally is annoying me. I dont want to take it away from those who find it useful but I would be so happy not having to put up with it. Option to choose. I even used to weirdness of "export" instead of "save as...". Although I still miss click at times  😆.

@Old Bruce I do appreciate help man, I know I could make shortcut. The whole thing is I would love to be able to avoid that completely useless for me "image".

[Bit Disappointed]

5 hours ago, nezumi said:

@Bit Arts - or should I say "Bit Harsh" 😉

Hehe, yes, maybe that should be my alias. But on the subject, I work with a company that supplies products to us. One of the leaders, who is an outstanding and esteemed leader, tells his teams: 'You are allowed to make mistakes, but you must not make the same mistake twice.' Of course, we are not talking about tiny errors here.

When companies consistently make the same mistakes against all trends, knowledge, and feedback, I see no reason to phrase myself as a subject before a king. For when things are going poorly, it's not up to me as a customer to motivate the company. It's the circumstances and shortcomings. And here, the many fanboys surrounding the mythical 'devs' as tribal chiefs and at the same time casting a smokescreen over those who genuinely need the product to improve, do not help.

If there's one thing that has benefited my career and professionalism, it is that I have listened and adjusted to the wishes and criticisms of customers and colleagues. I am used to criticism of any kind, and occasionally I have spent days understanding that the criticism or desires for change were justified. I simply had to view the problem from different angles, listen, and gather more facts.

I have long since grown beyond focusing on the form and more on the content, whether the feedback is good or bad. My impression of Serif is that they also handle honest discussions well. And that's how it should be, so I can express myself in a way that makes my joy or frustrations clearly visible. Notice that it's the users here in the forum who are thin-skinned, not Serif.

I also like Designer, but I'm tired and frustrated by the mistakes Serif keeps making against all known knowledge and feedback, year after year. Clearly, I'm not alone in this perception.

By the way, you are not described, either indirectly or directly, in the above. 🙂

[loukash]

12 hours ago, nezumi said:

often I have need to bring into one composition say 20 different pictures

1. place them all
2. select all of them
3. Layer → Rasterize

The only drawback here might be that Photo doesn't have the "Select Object" commands. So if you already have many layers of various kinds in your document, you many want to temporarily switch via File → Edit in Designer to select all "Image" type of objects without having to browse the Layers panel, and then you can rasterize them all in one step. It's all just a matter of a few seconds.

[v_kyr]

2 hours ago, nezumi said:

... but something that would allow NEVER to use "image" and always "pixel".

Well actually it depends on how one includes/places images here, aka if via the menu option "File -> Place ...", or drag'n'drop. - If one uses the drag'n'drop procedure, then it depends where one drags to and releases, aka ...

• when dragging and dropping directly into the boundaries of a document area/canvas, then an image will be placed as an "(image") layer.
• when dragging and dropping outside the boundaries of a document canvas, then a new doc will be created with a "(background pixel") layer. You would still have to copy/paste that new doc layer then over into your working doc.

... see also related ...

Quote

 

To open an image as a new document (via Finder):

• Open Finder and drag the file to an off page area of your workspace.

Photos opened using the above methods will create a new document with one layer, named 'Background'. The document will adopt the image name as its file name.

• https://affinity.help/photo2/English.lproj/index.html?page=pages/GetStarted/openDocument.html?title=Opening documents and images

 

Though I agree, that some setable option for the handling of photo placements as (image) versus (pixel) layers would make sense to have here. Or to have some "File -> Place as Pixel Layer..." menu option. And/or some drag'n'drop shortcut (Alt-Drag ... etc.) capability in order to distinguish when releasing (drop) between the wanted layer placement type methods (image vs pixel layer) here.

 

[nezumi]

@Bit Arts I really dont want to start thread that is bashing Affinity devs. Call me fanboy 😆 No, but for real - I enjoy a lot using Affinity software. Lot more then I was using Photoshop in its last versions before Affinity showed up for PC. And I used it daily for over 20 years.. Since version 4.0. At the beginning I felt in love with it but it lost appeal to me along the way. Stupid Adobe decisions - and I dont mean dreaded subscription - just got into me. Bloating Photoshop with stuff like video editing, useless (because slow as hell and extremely simple) 3D. At one point they even added 3D printing to Photoshop (which is of course what we are all looking for in photo manipulating software 🤣). At the same time it took 20 years for Adobe to add symmetry - option that I had in Deluxe Paint on Amiga in 90s... Stuff like that.

When I tried Affinity for first time it was so fresh to me - and I still love it for its simplicity. Yes sometimes I am lacking something but I do like more streamlined software. I dont know how is it now in Adobe package - but when I was leaving it jumping from Illustrator to Photoshop meant half of your vectors was rasterized... In Affinity I go back and forth, keeping vectors and the same look. Its brilliant. Also make a test - save the same content in both Adobe and Affinity. Check size of files - Affinity has the very same content saved in much smaller file. It was like this last time I tried it which was couple of years ago but I doubt it changed. I like it, I have thousands upon thousands of files.

Also I had many conversations with somebody representing Affinity, many of things I have asked for was actually added. I dont know if it was even remotely connected to fact that I asked for them but it feels nice when you ask for something and down the line somewhere it actually is added to the software. When it comes to Adobe you were lucky if you got automatic response "our team is working hard on resolving problems and we thank you for sharing that information". Or some other corpo-nonsense.

HOWEVER... 😏

I still dont understand some decisions behind Affinity. Admittedly very few. Like that export thing or incredibly useless for me "image" thing which only stays in the way of faster work. I want to think its useful for photographers - which I am not. So I dont want to judge whole usefulness of it based only on my personal needs, but I would like Photo to fit bit better into my daily routine where I am dragging different pictures from other software or copy-pasting them into one document etc. And that "image" mode is only standing in the way. Thats all. If possible I would love to see that. If not I will go back to...! Nah, just joking 😁 If not then I will still keep on clicking that bloody "rasterize", asking myself:

 

[loukash]

5 hours ago, nezumi said:

I still dont understand some decisions behind Affinity. Admittedly very few.

Don't worry, I guess we all have our individual "Affinity pet peeves".  

[fde101]

14 hours ago, Bit Arts said:

this very theoretical construct

You might feel that way if you are accustomed to thinking of a traditional photo app, but one limitation of raster layers is that their data is directly editable (the very thing you are trying to accomplish) which means that their data must be stored within the document file itself.  They cannot be placed as linked - they must be embedded.

There are numerous desktop publishing use cases where it would drive users just as crazy if this feature you are proposing ever became a default - there are reasons why they would want images to be linked rather than embedded, and image layers are essential to those workflows.

I don't think this request would be a popular addition to Publisher, and for Designer it is marginal, but I do agree that a checkbox in Preferences/Settings for Photo to auto-rasterize newly placed images would make sense for some workflows, though caution should be applied before consideration of making it a default, as current versions of Photo also support linked placement, and would similarly need to use image layers if users choose to take advantage of that option.

 

Another limitation of pixel layers is that they can only contain raster data.  Vector images can be placed and remain vector, so SVG files for example remain perfectly scalable as image layers, a property which would be lost when rasterizing to a pixel layer.

[nezumi]

8 hours ago, fde101 said:

if this feature you are proposing ever became a default

Personally I dont need it as default. I just want it as an option. I make it default for myself and happy days I wouldnt want to screw it up for people that do find it useful.

[debraspicher]

I've well adjusted to <Image> being the default and having to use Rasterize (but not often?) and like @fde101 mentions, it's mission critical to the living data concept behind the programs. It's just that I wish that they had a proper pixel-hinting algo, or at least some real way to control how our images are displaying in the viewport that matches export.. and ACCURATELY without export checks (Layer by layer resample settings hurray?), etc... but I can live with the <Image> default. I just wish it would scream at me more when I go to do something that I find doesn't work on that layer and then go, oh it's an Image Layer... that's why...

I do have a problem I am tracking where Images blur out when I open or include them (and no not a grid issue). I haven't figured out the main cause or if its yet another bug related to DPI scaling on my system... so that would be my main gripe with Images, is that they don't always display reliably, at least on my machine.

I agree wholeheartedly with @nezumi that I don't want to return to Adobe... it's on another level of reliable, sure, but it feels so ancient. Illustrator in particular was like being in an abusive marriage. I reinstalled them recently and realized I do not miss any of this...

[kirk23]

I support Image stay  image  by default.     Find it quite convenient .  It helps to keep everything non-destructive  and resolution independent.        Saves you from dealing  with  annoying "smart objects"  you waste your time for in Photoshop.   

The only  thing I am missing is ability to link  pixel content to another layer  . i.e  make a sort of live rasterization.    Especially since such thing is already happening for a screen.

[debraspicher]

16 minutes ago, kirk23 said:

The only  thing I am missing is ability to link  pixel content to another layer  . i.e  make a sort of live rasterization.    Especially since such thing is already happening for a screen.

That could be interesting. Especially if it helps with achieving the desired end result pre-export.

[nezumi]

4 hours ago, debraspicher said:

I just wish it would scream at me more when I go to do something that I find doesn't work on that layer and then go, oh it's an Image Layer... that's why...

EXACTLY THAT.

[loukash]

7 minutes ago, nezumi said:

4 hours ago, debraspicher said:

I just wish it would scream at me more when I go to do something that I find doesn't work on that layer and then go, oh it's an Image Layer... that's why...

EXACTLY THAT.

There's a reason why I always keep one panel open at any time, in all three apps: the Layers panel.
It's just that those small icons on the left could be screaming a bit louder.

[nezumi]

25 minutes ago, loukash said:

There's a reason why I always keep one panel open at any time, in all three apps: the Layers panel.
It's just that those small icons on the left could be screaming a bit louder.

I do have layer panels open at all times. I do not hear that screaming if you know what I mean