Path to Selction

[Mischugo]

28 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Since you are using the Mac OS, in regular (non-separated) Window mode, you can dock as many Studio panel & tabbed panel blocks together as you want in either the left or right studios. You can't dock two columns of blocks to the same side of the main window, but maybe that would get you closer to what you want.

In short words - i like to have the really same as in Photoshop.

You can individually set and save your workspace, and will have then all in one main window. If you then resize your program windwow, all panels goes with you

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, toltec said:

Of course, but where would you put two rather large buttons on this ?

Yes, things would get more crowded on the Context toolbar, but they already are for many of the tools & yet users still somehow manage to access the ones too narrow to fit the width of their screen (or window, if on a Mac) by clicking on the ≫ button to access them. The buttons could also be made smaller by using icons instead of words (the mask Layer panel badge enlarged would be one example) similar to the "Show Rotation Center" icon for the Node tool.

22 minutes ago, toltec said:

You can even use the Pen Tool to select the curve layer with and again, the buttons are there.

But only after converting the shape to curves -- while they are still shapes those buttons are greyed out. At the very least, it would be helpful if for the shapes those buttons both converted them to curves & to masks or selections.

[toltec]

7 minutes ago, R C-R said:

they are still shapes those buttons are greyed out. At the very least, it would be helpful if for the shapes those buttons both converted them to curves & to masks or selections.

OK, so maybe as I suggested a dropdown menu available from the Selection part of the Toolbar ? It would look like the Quick Mask bit. No real estate lost but always available.

Selections are an important part of Photo editing, so those options would indeed be very useful.

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, Mischugo said:

In short words - i like to have the really same as in Photoshop.

Then in other short words you should be using Photoshop because Affinity Photo is never going to do everything the same way, nor should it. If you take some time to browse through the forum you will see why. Among other reasons, many of us like Affinity Photo precisely because it does not do things in the same way as Photoshop.

[Mischugo]

4 hours ago, R C-R said:

Then in other short words you should be using Photoshop because Affinity Photo is never going to do everything the same way, nor should it. If you take some time to browse through the forum you will see why. Among other reasons, many of us like Affinity Photo precisely because it does not do things in the same way as Photoshop.

It was about taking up the approach from Photoshop.
But thank you for a really completely unprofessional answer. I'm happy to pass that on.
There is no one who does not "absorb" and further develop any inspiration from other suppliers or products. There would also be no success in science if this were not the case. But it is important to copy the right things and then improve them further. I now realize that user experience and the implementation of important features, e.g. from the print industry, cannot be a passionate topic at Affinity. There are enough inquiries in the forum. There is almost nothing in Affinity that doesn't exist elsewhere.

About Photoshop.
Most people complain about Adobe and the subscription plans, but not about the software itself. I'd think about that.
And too much vanity doesn't do you any good and doesn't achieve your goals either. 

Because your comment describes the attitude towards the further development of this program, it is
I'll take care of it.

Thank you again.
 

[toltec]

1 minute ago, Mischugo said:

Most people complain about Adobe and the subscription plans, but not about the software itself.

Sorry, but I don't agree.

I used Photoshop for thirty years and IMHO it is bloated and a bit dated. Personally, I prefer Photo, and I am not alone. People always complain. Search the web !

If nobody ever created anything new, we would all be using Windows 3.11, MS DOS or even a pencil.

I know many people just want Photoshop on the cheap, but many also like something a bit newer. If not, what is the point of Designers  or Developers ? Sure different opinions are good, but don't stifle development just for the sake of a cheap (and what would inevitably be inferior) clone. That would also attract lawsuits.

As R-CR points out, if what you really want is Photoshop, then buy Photoshop.

[Alfred]

11 minutes ago, Mischugo said:

your comment describes the attitude towards the further development of this program

@R C-R is not a developer. He is just a user like you and me. (All Serif staff are readily identified by a badge under the avatar.)

[toltec]

17 minutes ago, αℓƒяє∂ said:

like you and me.

Here, steady on my good man 

 

I can't compare to R-CR. 

[Mischugo]

59 minutes ago, toltec said:

Sorry, but I don't agree.

I used Photoshop for thirty years and IMHO it is bloated and a bit dated. Personally, I prefer Photo, and I am not alone. People always complain. Search the web !

If nobody ever created anything new, we would all be using Windows 3.11, MS DOS or even a pencil.

I know many people just want Photoshop on the cheap, but many also like something a bit newer. If not, what is the point of Designers  or Developers ? Sure different opinions are good, but don't stifle development just for the sake of a cheap (and what would inevitably be inferior) clone. That would also attract lawsuits.

As R-CR points out, if what you really want is Photoshop, then buy Photoshop.

I'm sorry I'm not fit in english or can express myself even better, but apparently the discussion here completely misses the point.
The ability to organize panels works in both Photo and Photoshop. In Photoshop it is better and more comfortable for my taste. And in Photo doesn't want to implement this "problem" better, because you are worried that it would be like in Photoshop? Then it should be done even better

I don't understand at all what there is not to understand about it. Unless you deny yourself out despite. If I had invented the KenBurn effect, you might like to improve and offer it. But in your opinion this is a No Go???

Oh oh oh

 

But thanks

[R C-R]

28 minutes ago, Mischugo said:

It was about taking up the approach from Photoshop.

You said you wanted it to be "really same as in Photoshop." How else do you expect people to interpret that other than as having the same UI choices? There are a number of reasons that is not going to happen in Affinity Photo, all of which have been explained in numerous topics & in great detail in these forums by the staff & developers.

39 minutes ago, Mischugo said:

There is almost nothing in Affinity that doesn't exist elsewhere.

Really? What about the universal native file format that any app in the Affinity suite can open without conversion or loss? Or the very high memory efficiency or pan & zoom refresh rates? Maybe the minimal dependance on modal dialogs? Serialized file storage or the ability to handle pixel dimensions that choke Photoshop? Sure, you can find some of these things in other apps but good luck trying to find them all in one app, much less one in this price range.

The developers have made it very clear that the primary goal of the "clean slate" design approach they chose to adopt for the Affinity range was to be free of the limitations of legacy code bases that bog down & bloat apps like Adobe's & their own Windows-only Plus line. It isn't about 'improving' what already exists by bolting on even more of the same old stuff. It is about designing from the ground up to take advantage of the newest & most efficient emerging technologies wherever possible.

If you don't like that approach to software design, you have plenty of other choices, but the Affinity approach is not going to be the right one for you.

[toltec]

26 minutes ago, Mischugo said:

In Photoshop it is better and more comfortable for my taste. 

Exactly, for "your" taste. That might not be to my taste, or anyone else's taste.

I think you are missing the point. By all means, if you like something better, make a feature request. I'm sure, if enough people make exactly the same request, Serif will respond.

A lot of people did not like the dark UI, so now there is a light UI option. Great !!!

However, just because it is done a certain way in Photoshop is not a valid reason to do it the same in Photo. Remember, that a lot of people will be new to Photo editing and will not have the Photoshop mentality (habits?). So will be perfectly happy. Some will prefer the new style, as I do for many things. Yes, I miss certain things or ways of doing things from PS, but I soon adapted. And I'm old and a bit set in my ways.

Lets face it, I suspect Photoshop would have been very closely scrutinised by the team before they even wrote a line of code for Photo. The team are doing a great job (mostly) trying to improve things where they can. As I said, if you absolutely must have it exactly the same as Photoshop, buy Photoshop.

Still, start off by making a feature request. If enough people respond and agree with you (I might agree too), Serif will likely include it as time goes by. 

[Mischugo]

27 minutes ago, toltec said:

Exactly, for "your" taste. That might not be to my taste, or anyone else's taste.

I think you are missing the point. By all means, if you like something better, make a feature request. I'm sure, if enough people make exactly the same request, Serif will respond.

A lot of people did not like the dark UI, so now there is a light UI option. Great !!!

However, just because it is done a certain way in Photoshop is not a valid reason to do it the same in Photo. Remember, that a lot of people will be new to Photo editing and will not have the Photoshop mentality (habits?). So will be perfectly happy. Some will prefer the new style, as I do for many things. Yes, I miss certain things or ways of doing things from PS, but I soon adapted. And I'm old and a bit set in my ways.

Lets face it, I suspect Photoshop would have been very closely scrutinised by the team before they even wrote a line of code for Photo. The team are doing a great job (mostly) trying to improve things where they can. As I said, if you absolutely must have it exactly the same as Photoshop, buy Photoshop.

Still, start off by making a feature request. If enough people respond and agree with you (I might agree too), Serif will likely include it as time goes by. 

OK, let me get this straight.

It was all about handling the panels and saving them as a separate workspace. The handling now (see video) is the novelty, because you don't want to implement anything as if it were like in Photoshop. And this is now a "benefit" for a better workflow? I asked that as a request ages ago :-) Since this has not improved or changed to this day, no value is placed on it. I get it. Then let it be so.
I hope I don't have to describe what I wanted to say with the video (?)

 

Cheers and off

 

[MEB]

Hi Mischugo,
Please feel free to add any improvements you'd like to be seen regarding workspace management in a new thread in the Feature Requests section. I've seen a few users requesting similar features already and the dev team does check that section for improvements/feedback.

R C-R, toltec,
I think Mischugo was using  Photoshop as a reference/example of the flexibility it offers here and how he would like to see similar functionally provided in Affinity Photo. Most user's request are usually supported/explained through features/functionality they found useful/like in other apps so it's possible we may be misunderstanding/taking his request in the wrong way. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and way of work. Let's try to respect that please.

[toltec]

If you are talking about the panels floating, they

1 minute ago, MEB said:

I think Mischugo was using  Photoshop as a reference/example of the flexibility it offers here and how he would like to see similar functionally provided in Affinity Photo. Most user's request are usually supported/explained through features/functionality they found useful/like in other apps so it's possible we may be misunderstanding/taking his request in the wrong way. Everyone is entitled to its opinions and way of work. Let's respect that please.

I certainly do agree with Mischugo about different opinions and ways of working, I said

38 minutes ago, toltec said:

start off by making a feature request. If enough people respond and agree with you (I might agree too), Serif will likely include it as time goes by.

However, some of what he is saying/reading does seem to be "lost n translation"

 

[toltec]

39 minutes ago, Mischugo said:

The handling now (see video) is the novelty,

Are you talking about the way the Layers/Channels/Brushes panels float separately from the main window in your video ?

They don't do that if you "dock" them, see how it goes blue when you dock them

 

Then the panels will all move and resize with the main window.

 

Different savable workspaces are a different issue. I would like to see that introduced. Even if it works the same as in Photoshop