Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Recommended Posts

I know i know, I've seen the endless tutorials how to "cut" out part of images in Affinity Photo, but the real question is:

Why can't I cut out with ctrl+c/ ctrl+x?

This is the usual behaviour across all programms (not only design/photo programms) and operatin systems existing. Why do you have to change? This is extremely ux unfriendly. You are the one and only program that blocks copy/cutting with ctrl+c/ctrl+x I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of programms.

 

Marvin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think it is impossible to cut out parts of an “image” in Affinity Photo? Are you talking of an image layer (or image object) in contradistinction to a pixel layer? Then yes, it is impossible to cut out a part of an image layer, but that makes sense. It is incredibly useful to have image layers in a document that retain some of their original properties when placed. To cut out a part of an image layer, simply rasterise it (Layer > Rasterise …). It will become a pixel layer at document resolution, and you can cut and copy parts of it. Here is some information regarding image layers and pixel layers:

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/19770-rasterrasterizerasterise/&tab=comments#comment-91891

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/13651-layers-and-masks-concepts/&tab=comments#comment-60276

Cheers, Alex :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, A_B_C said:

Why do you think it is impossible to cut out parts of an “image” in Affinity Photo? Are you talking of an image layer (or image object) in contradistinction to a pixel layer? Then yes, it is impossible to cut out a part of an image layer, but that makes sense. It is incredibly useful to have image layers in a document that retain some of their original properties when placed. To cut out a part of an image layer, simply rasterise it (Layer > Rasterise …). It will become a pixel layer at document resolution, and you can cut and copy parts of it. Here is some information regarding image layers and pixel layers:

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/19770-rasterrasterizerasterise/&tab=comments#comment-91891

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/13651-layers-and-masks-concepts/&tab=comments#comment-60276

Cheers, Alex :)

As I already said in my first sentence: I know i know, I've seen the endless tutorials how to "cut" out part of images in Affinity Photo
The problem is, that you Serif adds additional steps to usual simple tasks and makes them more complicated.

This is probably the reason why they even can't release a android app, because they need the apple ios metal interface to create their overly complex steps.

Just saying:

If I want to cut something out, I want to do it as it is learned in user behaviour over the past 20+ years. There is no need to change that behaviour.
This isn't even the only thing Affinity tries to "improve".

The software is awesome, don't get me wrong, but that extreme hardcore try of being special and different than other softwares is just plainly stupid and contra productive for the user experience. Why change user behaviour that has been learned over decades?

 

 

Edit: I guess this belongs to feedback, tho. my bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly cannot see why rasterising a layer should be considered overly complicated, and I see a real value in the concept of image layers versus raster layers. In my opinion, this is a useful concept. Don’t get me wrong, there are some instances where I would love to have a more streamlined workflow, but in this particular case, I believe the deviation from the beaten path makes sense.

As a side note, you will surely know that you can assign a custom shortcut to the Rasterise … command. So it shouldn’t be too much hassle to achieve what you want.

Shortcut.png.e8253ec36629c8f27d5795262ad8a1da.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Marvin said:

This is probably the reason why they even can't release a android app, because they need the apple ios metal interface to create their overly complex steps.

That makes no sense. If that was true, how do you think they managed to produce the Windows versions?

22 hours ago, Marvin said:

Why change user behaviour that has been learned over decades?

One reason is because the technology was not advanced or affordable enough decades ago to make it practical for most users to adopt better, more efficient & adaptable ways of working.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 7/17/2018 at 10:43 AM, R C-R said:

That makes no sense. If that was true, how do you think they managed to produce the Windows versions?

One reason is because the technology was not advanced or affordable enough decades ago to make it practical for most users to adopt better, more efficient & adaptable ways of working.

Two clicks are far more efficient than masking masking masking.

 

Thread can be closed due to uselessness. I am back to Photoshop for professional work as it has a better UX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2018 at 4:28 PM, A_B_C said:

I honestly cannot see why rasterising a layer should be considered overly complicated, and I see a real value in the concept of image layers versus raster layers. In my opinion, this is a useful concept. Don’t get me wrong, there are some instances where I would love to have a more streamlined workflow, but in this particular case, I believe the deviation from the beaten path makes sense

Rasterising should be avoided. Rasterizing can reduce image quality, as it (as I have heard) uses nearest neighbour resampling, and it just does not retain original pixel data for later manipulations. Rasterising can be harmful.

That said, I think Serif should allow copying selection from image layer, i.e. rasterize a copy behind the scene, copy needed part and leave the original layer untouched. Cutting on the other hand always modifies original layer, so I guess auto rasterization would be ok. People who need original quality can always use a mask instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fixx said:

Rasterising should be avoided. Rasterizing can reduce image quality, as it (as I have heard) uses nearest neighbour resampling, and it just does not retain original pixel data for later manipulations. Rasterising can be harmful.

Surely the pixel dimensions of the oiginal image are the same as the rasterized version. So how come resampling is necessary? You say "as I have heard". I think we need chapter and verse for this.

John

Windows 10, Affinity Photo 1.10.5 Designer 1.10.5 and Publisher 1.10.5 (mainly Photo), now ex-Adobe CC

CPU: AMD A6-3670. RAM: 16 GB DDR3 @ 666MHz, Graphics: 2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 630

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Rostron said:

Surely the pixel dimensions of the oiginal image are the same as the rasterized version. So how come resampling is necessary? You say "as I have heard". I think we need chapter and verse for this.

If you have transformed a layer or done some other layer operations to it, it is not the same as original. As far as I am aware, rasterization fits image layer pixels to document resolution. (Of course it is possible that rasterization keeps original pixels and does not resample, but no one has not said so...)

If you just simply open an image for manipulation in AP, it is a pixel layer and none of this rasterization stuff is necessary.

Yes, I have heard. There has not been any definite answer what actually happen in rasterization resample, but nearest neighbour was mentioned, Affinity personnel has not said anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fixx said:

If you just simply open an image for manipulation in AP, it is a pixel layer and none of this rasterization stuff is necessary.

If you do any destructive manipulation of that pixel layer then one or another form of that "rasterization stuff" is not just necessary, it is unavoidable. That is why AP (like all other image editors except the simplest, bare-bones ones) include a variety of non-destructive ways to manipulate even a document that contains just a single pixel layer.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, R C-R said:

If you do any destructive manipulation of that pixel layer then one or another form of that "rasterization stuff" is not just necessary, it is unavoidable. That is why AP (like all other image editors except the simplest, bare-bones ones) include a variety of non-destructive ways to manipulate even a document that contains just a single pixel layer.

No, if you do pixel manipulation on pixel layer, there is no need to select command "rasterize".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.