When does Photo get text on a path(curve)?

[uncle808us]

When does Photo get text on a path(curve)?

[kirbez]

Same question. For some reason, text converted to curves without any notice or question and I do not be able to edit it any more 

[MEB]

Hi uncle808us,

As far as i know there's no plans to implement this in Affinity Photo. Only Designer will have this feature. You can use the menu File ▸ Edit in Designer... command to quickly switch to Designer to create the text then use the same command again to go back to Photo (assuming you have both programs).

 

Hi kirbez,

Welcome to Affinity Forums :)

This is a different issue. You are probably pressing ⌘ (cmd) + ↵ simultaneously which is the shortcut to convert text to curves on the Mac (CTRL + Enter if you are using Windows).

[uncle808us]

 

 

[Alfred]

On ‎20‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 2:36 PM, uncle808us said:

How do you explain this? https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/16413-path-text-tool/?p=74536

 

What is there to explain? When I follow your link, I see a post from MEB where he wrote "Affinity Photo doesn't have text-on-a-path, but Affinity Designer does", which is essentially the same as his statement in the current thread.

[uncle808us]

What is there to explain? When I follow your link, I see a post from MEB where he wrote "Affinity Photo doesn't have text-on-a-path, but Affinity Designer does", which is essentially the same as his statement in the current thread.

I get it I was trying to delete my post but could not figure out how to delete it. Thanks

[Richard S.]

Why would this not be considered for AP?

If people are going to need to swap over to AD just to do this, surely it makes sense to add it to AP?

 

Not every user would own both apps.

 

Just curious.

[Fixx]

text-on-a-path is considered to be a design feature, AP is for pixel editing.

[Alfred]

If people are going to need to swap over to AD just to do this, surely it makes sense to add it to AP?

 

People are going to need to swap over to APub to get linked text frames in AD or APh. If there isn't going to be a single, all-in-one app, we're likely to come across lots of cases like this.

 

I'd rather have the choice of buying two or three separate apps, depending on my needs, instead of paying two or three times as much for a bloated app with lots of features that I might never use.

[Richard S.]

Although AP is for pixel editing, it could still have the text-on-a-path feature.

Just because some people would not use it, is not really a valid reason for not including it?

[Alfred]

The thing is, DesignMeister, where do you draw the (vector or pixel) line? I'd like to see linked text frames in AD, but I accept that it probably isn't going to happen.

[Richard S.]

The point I'm trying to make is just that AP is not just used by photographers to edit their images - pixel based apps are also very often used to create images, and to add effects to already existing images.

I know this can be done in AD, but if the code already exists, I presume it could be added to AP relatively smoothly, thus offering extra functionality.

 

Just seems strange to have the code, but not include it?

[MartinK]

text-on-a-path is considered to be a design feature, AP is for pixel editing.

 

So Photoshop (Elements) is a Program for Design? Shapes are not design features?

[R C-R]

So Photoshop (Elements) is a Program for Design? Shapes are not design features?

PSE is a good example of a bloated app that uses way more system resources than it should to do much of anything, & costs about the same as AD & AP combined. An extra "bonus," at least in the Mac versions, is the old version may quit working completely or crash unpredictably when you upgrade the OS, necessitating forking over more cash to Adobe if you want to keep using it.

 

On a Mac, it also installs a huge amount of support files, some of which are used instead of the builtin OS X API's to do things 'the Adobe way' (which is part of the reason it can break when upgrading the OS). Some of those files contain useful resources; some do not. Annoyingly, the app may fail to start if you remove any of them you have no use for, complaining that "essential resources" are MIA & suggesting reinstalling the app is required to fix this. On top of that, some of the files are duplicates, unnecessarily installed in several different places and the Adobe uninstaller may fail to remove all of them if you decide to get rid of all that bloat & use something built on a more modern, far more efficient code base like Affinity.

 

Aside from that, it is a great app, perfect for all my needs (not!).

[R C-R]

Just seems strange to have the code, but not include it?

Does it also seem strange to you that Adobe doesn't include all the code in all its apps into one monster app, or that Apple or Autodesk (to name just two) does not do the same thing for their 'pro' & 'consumer' graphics apps?

[Richard S.]

R C-R,

 

 

Does it also seem strange to you that Adobe doesn't include all the code in all its apps into one monster app, or that Apple or Autodesk (to name just two) does not do the same thing for their 'pro' & 'consumer' graphics apps?

No, it doesn't.

 

Affinity does not have "Pro" and "Consumer" apps - they have 2 apps - one for primarily pixel based images, and another for primarily vector based.

Some users will only use AP and others only AD, therefore if they share the same codebase, it seems strange not to include it in both (in my opinion). This is like saying - you can only create rectangles in one, but if you want a circle, you will have to use the other app.

 

Both apps will be used to create / edit images, so why just put that functionality into one of them?

[R C-R]

Both apps will be used to create / edit images, so why just put that functionality into one of them?

Because that creates a strong incentive to buy both apps, which in the real world of commercial software development means they do not have to charge more for each of them to maintain a reasonable profit level, have enough working capital to sustain rapid product development, etc.

 

It is basically the same reason Adobe doesn't include everything in its lower priced PSE app as in the more expensive PS app.

[MEB]

Hi DesignMeister,

You are generalising this a little. 3D apps also serve to create images but they are not comparable to any of the Affinity apps. Affinity Photo and Designer serve different purposes. In order to keep them focused we implement specific features where we think they are more appropriate. The apps of the suite were designed to easily swap documents between them so there's no need to replicate all features in all of them. The idea is to offer better/improved tools for each of the areas the apps where designed for than make each of the apps flexible enough to cover most of the areas (which usually leads to bloat and weaker features). I believe this difference will become more obvious as we introduce and improve the tools each app was designed for.

Affinity Designer is a graphic/web/ui design application. It's an app indicated to design/layout graphics for web, webpages, posters, logos, interfaces, basically everything that implies project/design something excluding text heavy projects. Affinity Photo is a RAW developer/photo editing app. Its main purpose it's to deal with photographic images, being them panoramas, photo compositing, HDR, whatever... but It's not intended to be used for design where text on a path makes more sense (for logos, crests whatever).

 

There's other raster based apps that may include text on path, but they aren't eventually part of a suite or/and are trying to maximise the coverage/use of the app wherever possible which is fine but it's not what we are aiming for.

[Richard S.]

Thanks MEB - that makes it much clearer.

I never realised that AP was created mainly for RAW developing / Photo editing, I presumed it was for general image editing / design.

 

I guess I should no longer use AP then, which is a shame, as I have spent a lot of time here, trying to help people, and I was even on the point of creating textured brushes for AP community.

It now makes more sense for me to just concentrate on AD (even though I purchased both apps).

 

Thank you for clearing this up for me :)

[Alfred]

I guess I will no longer use AP then, which is a shame, as I was even on the point of creating brushes for AP.

I will now just concentrate on AD (even though I purchased both apps).

 

Even if this discussion has put you off using APh, you can still go ahead and create your raster brushes. Any brushes that will work in the Photo Persona in APh will also work in the Pixel Persona in AD. :)

[Richard S.]

Alfred,

that's true, I guess I could continue making the brushes in my spare time.

 

I'm just really disappointed, as I was hoping AP would become a replacement for my regular Image Editing app.

[R C-R]

I guess I should no longer use AP then, which is a shame, as I have spent a lot of time here, trying to help people, and I was even on the point of creating textured brushes for AP community.

AP has a much stronger set of raster image oriented features. You may find that it complements AD quite nicely for doing some things, for example creating bitmap fill textures for vector objects.

[MEB]

Hi DesignMeister,

I don't think you have to shelve it (Photo). They both complement each other. I don't know what type of work you usually do but there will be times you may want to tweak an image you are using on a poster or on some graphic banner for a webpage or social network in Designer where you may want to remove an unwanted element, do some colour correction or colour grade it for aesthetic/communication purposes. Those things can only be achieved in Photo. If you own both apps you can take advantage of the strengths of each one.

[Richard S.]

I understand what you are saying, but for my specific needs, this would be totally illogical.

My current image editing app can do everything I have ever needed it to do, without me having to keep swapping between two different apps.

 

Therefore it makes sense for me to use AD for pure vector images, and stick with what I have for pixel based images.

Everyone has different needs and requirements, so a one-size-fits-all app is unfortunately not feasible :(

 

No worries, I will give AD a try and see how I get on with that.

Thanks for the discussion anyway :)

[R C-R]

My current image editing app can do everything I have ever needed it to do, without me having to keep swapping between two different apps.

I am just curious, but what is your current image editing app? Compared to AD how are its features for creating & editing vector objects? Does it have a similarly extensive set of parametric shapes (like the Cog tool), provide realtime live effects previews, & so on? Does it start to bog down on very complex documents or gobble up all the system's memory?