Photo or Designer. Which is for me ?

[Siaro]

Hey,

This might sound so imature but there are actually digners that redesign textures in minecraft.

I regular use photoshop to create these designs but now i found this tool for only 60 bucks permanent and thaught if this is a good replacedment.

I need to know which program i should rather use when im only designing with my mouse on rasters in pixels (16x16, 32x32, 64x64 ....).

 

Siaro~

[gdenby]

Hi, Siaro,

 

Both Affinity Designer and Photo have a pixel brush tool. That allows painting non-aliased images with a square brush at small sizes. Once up to large size, like 300 x 300, there is a single line antialiased border around the brush. I think Designer is a better choice for you. Photo is aimed at people who start working w. RAW digital camera files. There are many features you would likely never need, and the program interface has many tools that would just be a distraction.

[Merde]

Affinity Photo should be better for you.

[Alfred]

5 minutes ago, Merde said:

Affinity Photo should be better for you.

 

Why? As @gdenby has pointed out:

 

7 hours ago, gdenby said:

There are many features you would likely never need, and the program interface has many tools that would just be a distraction.

 

[Merde]

On 16.12.2017 at 7:20 AM, Alfred said:

Why? As @gdenby has pointed out:

Because raster-oriented tools in Designer are somewhat inferior.

@gdenby is of course right, but there are always tools you just don't need. But with Affinity Designer chances are there might be one tool you might require that is not available. After all, AD is made for vector graphics.

"Use the right tool for the job". Or, simply, buy both :-)

[Siaro]

On 12/16/2017 at 7:20 AM, Alfred said:

 

Why? As @gdenby has pointed out:

 

So which one shall i use now ?

 

[Alfred]

4 minutes ago, Siaro said:

So which one shall i use now ?

 

You need to decide whose argument you find to be the more persuasive of the two!

 

[Siaro]

32 minutes ago, Alfred said:

 

You need to decide whose argument you find to be the more persuasive of the two!

 

I downloaded both trials and i just saw that affinity designer doesnt really fit for what im doing but the marquee tool of photo which i always use is very weird D:

[Alfred]

16 minutes ago, Siaro said:

I downloaded both trials and i just saw that affinity designer doesnt really fit for what im doing but the marquee tool of photo which i always use is very weird D:

 

What's weird about it? How does it differ from what you expected? 

 

[Siaro]

Just now, Alfred said:

 

What's weird about it? How does it differ from what you expected? 

 

I dont really get how to fill it up and its also very inaccurate when you use 512 px +.

Heres an example video on paint net

 

[SrPx]

There's a ton of different ways in Affinity Photo to do that design (and even more complex ones), with marquee or another tools. I do use Paint.net as is the only tool certain children of a friend of mine seen to be willing to use (teach them by using a remote desktop utility, which adds to the difficulty), and I can tell you, that free tiny jewel is extremely limited compared to Photo...  Not a pun against Paint.net, which I have always liked, but as an example, layers handling is like years in distance of capabilities what you can do with Photo's layers compared with Paint.net's. And even in its simplicity, somethings could be more streamlined in Paint.net, a PS user notices that very fast. And practically in every department of the app happens so...

 

Okay, digging in your particular case. By all what I can see, you are making mods or fan art for Minecraft (for those not knowing, a massively adopted game in *very* low polygon count that really was and is successful with its blocky aesthetic, and apparently extremely popular among the young ones. I have made fan art as commissions for Minecraft servers, both pixel art or high end 2D illustration but rendering kindda that blocky style). You basically are needing a 2D tool to make textures. Allowing you to do sharp edges and pixel art. Both things pretty possible in Photo. You are not forced to do those designs with booleans!   IMO, Photo is indeed better than Designer for this. And as you said, yep, is a replacement for Photoshop, while Paint.net is a bit too far from that (you might like to see the global advantages in that), features-wise, and in level of complexity of projects that you can engage with one or the other. Indeed, I think Photo as is now is particularly fine for working zoomed in, as one mostly works while doing pixel art. And I should know about the matter, I worked a full year just doing pixel art for mobile games at a studio (and later on in other places.) In Photo, that'd be using the 1 pixel tool. But you don't seem to do pure pixel art (you could, and then scale up in a very specific way that wouldn't add aliasing, I've done that even for large posters to be printed, and t-shirts, but that'd require another line of explanation now about how to do that well), but instead, seems is just chopping and adding shapes. Indeed, you could do designs like these easily in Designer, but as you like to do a lot of boolean operations....well it also could be... well, I'll just say that I definitely could use both apps for this. But each person is a world apart...

[gdenby]

Getting back to this thread, I must say that my comment was based on the graphics I saw when I last used Minecraft, several years ago. Everything was very 8-bit squares, repeated and knit together. It appears that currently there are textures within textures. So I'm guessing that some of Photo's filters would offer a more naturalistic variation that seems to be the standard now.

 

Still, no need to develop RAW files. so ignore the Develop persona.