Gradient tool is awful

[rygar]

First of all, I must congratulate you because your software is (almost) perfect!

But I would strongly, STRONGLY suggest to do something with gradient tool. This thing does not remember settings - each time I use it I have to go trough process of setting up of what I want. In addition, instead of just painting a gradient on active layer it creates an object (rectangular box that is completely useless) with a gradient, it behaves like a tool in vector program, not bitmap editor.

It is basically not possible to quickly paint several gradients on a layer. When I try to paint second one, it immediately erases previous one.

Also, in gradient tool there is gradient editor (quite complete and functional) in top context menu, but for some reason there is no such function on the dockers? It should be easy to move the same thing to color editing window/docker.

 

PLEASE, make gradient tool behave like in Krita or Photoshop, ie like a kind of brush (after we paint gradient we should be able immediately create new one without any confirmations or clicking). Ability to 'dynamically modify gradient' is something that should be reserved to Designer, not bitmap editor. Also the direction in which we paint the gradient is counter intuitive (ie opposite of all other programs) - the gradient ends with chosen color instead of starting with it.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by rygar

[fde101]

The gradient tool in Photo is primarily a vector tool that is intended to be used with the shapes and with paths made using the pen tool.  It is actually called the "Fill" tool in Designer and in Publisher even though it can also be applied to the stroke of a shape as well.

I think what you are looking for is a different tool, but this one does make perfect sense in the context of modifying the appearance of vector shapes.

[rygar]

I can perfectly see that it may be useful for many things, it's not like I want it to be removed. But I also think it would be quite trivial to create a variant that works like Krita/PS gradient tool.

 

There could be 2 variants that could be accessed depending on context/persona/layer type (current one for vectors, and "classic" type for bitmaps)

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by rygar

[Frozen Death Knight]

@rygar Can't you just save your gradient as a style or just make a shape object with a gradient and save that as an asset which you can reuse as much as you want by masking it to whatever object you want the gradient to be on? You don't have to remake the exact same gradient style every time you make a new layer.

If you want to have multiple gradients on top of each other you could just duplicate the original layer with the gradient, mask the duplicate to the original (aka Mask to Below), change the opacity so you can see the original gradient, and adjust the new gradient to what you want.

I made a video showing how you can create your own assets as well as copying styles you've saved to new layers. These methods work in Publisher, Designer, and Photo.

[Frozen Death Knight]

@rygar Here are two more videos showing how to quickly make and save a new gradient style and how to quickly make a new gradient on top of another as I described earlier.

[rygar]

there are several ways to get around limitations - but that is not the point. See, in real life pro work, I just want to do things quickly. it is partially muscle memory trained for 20 years, but not entirely. The same operation can be done the way you described, it would take about 3-5 seconds to achieve, or below 1 second operation done "my" way without much thinking. Not even talking about versatility of 'normal' gradients, that can be quickly used also for fast gradient-masking, while solution you showed is limited - yes I can copy layer with gradient, but that does not work with masks..

 

[Alfred]

19 minutes ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

If you want to have multiple gradients on top of each other you could just duplicate the original layer with the gradient, mask the duplicate to the original (aka Mask to Below), change the opacity so you can see the original gradient, and adjust the new gradient to what you want.

Another useful trick for multiple gradients is to select the object that has a gradient applied, group it (which is allowed even though there is only one object) and then apply another gradient to the group. Repeat as often as necessary.

[Frozen Death Knight]

33 minutes ago, rygar said:

there are several ways to get around limitations - but that is not the point. See, in real life pro work, I just want to do things quickly. it is partially muscle memory trained for 20 years, but not entirely. The same operation can be done the way you described, it would take about 3-5 seconds to achieve, or below 1 second operation done "my" way without much thinking. Not even talking about versatility of 'normal' gradients, that can be quickly used also for fast gradient-masking, while solution you showed is limited - yes I can copy layer with gradient, but that does not work with masks..

How is it a limitation when you can just save any object gradient you want and just drag them onto the canvas as an asset? Just make a shape with your desired gradient and keep adding more of them to the document. It is fast and non-destructive.

What do you mean copying a layer with a gradient does not work with masks? Layers with gradients on them can be used as masks you know, and you can save layers with masks in them as assets as well.

[rygar]

37 minutes ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

What do you mean copying layer with gradient does not work with masks?

I mean QUICK masks, for example I have a photo and I want quickly make gradient mask using 2- 3 gradients. Normally I just pick layer mask and quickly slap several gradients on it - which takes me about 2-3 seconds. Creating layers and grouping them is just too much hassle to do something that simple. Again, I don't look for solutions that you provide there, I know how to get around problems. I want useful, practical tool for work, something that works quickly and gets out of my way. Creating styles or making several layers and use them to create mask just to apply a gradient is just... not efficient way to work lets say. At least for me. I watched the movies and I pulled my hair watching how you fight to do something I could do 4x times faster in Krita/PS. That is my frustration with current tool - I don't need ability to edit gradient after I applied it or edit it in place, I can predict how it will look like or simply will use Undo function (because again, it is faster for me to do that - one hand always on keyboard and so on).

These solutions are typical to working with vector program. I don't like to work this way, that is why I have chosen Photo, not Designer.

Edited July 17, 2019 by rygar

[Frozen Death Knight]

1 hour ago, rygar said:

I mean QUICK masks, for example I have a photo and I want quickly make gradient mask using 2- 3 gradients. Normally I just pick layer mask and quickly slap several gradients on it - which takes me about 2-3 seconds. Creating layers and grouping them is just too much hassle to do something that simple. Again, I don't look for solutions that you provide there, I know how to get around problems. I want useful, practical tool for work, something that works quickly and gets out of my way. Creating styles or making several layers and use them to create mask just to apply a gradient is just... not efficient way to work lets say. At least for me. I watched the movies and I pulled my hair watching how you fight to do something I could do 4x times faster in Krita/PS. That is my frustration with current tool - I don't need ability to edit gradient after I applied it or edit it in place, I can predict how it will look like or simply will use Undo function (because again, it is faster for me to do that - one hand always on keyboard and so on).

These solutions are typical to working with vector program. I don't like to work this way, that is why I have chosen Photo, not Designer.

Ah, Quick Masks. That makes more sense. I personally prefer more control and a more non-destructive workflow over absolute maximized speed (speed is important of course), so I guess that's why we didn't see eye to eye at first.

If I wanted to do something similar I would just create a mask, use the Gradient tool on it, press V to switch to the Move tool to ctrl drag for making duplicates (optional), and then duplicate the layer action by pressing ctrl+J over and over. Also, since duplicate selection actually remembers how much you moved, scaled, skewed, and rotated your layer, you can do some fun stuff while duplicating your mask gradients rapidly.

I understand that this may not be the most optimal way for you personally, so a destructive Gradient tool would solve your issue in that case. The way the current one works is completely non-destructive unlike the Gradient tool in Photoshop, which is completely destructive in nature. I don't think it would be possible to combine the two approaches into a single tool because they are so fundamentally different. Making a new tool I believe would be the best approach here.

[rygar]

1 hour ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

I personally prefer more control and a more non-destructive workflow

and that is great - I am not saying that this is not valid or not needed - it should remain as available option that I will use myself in many situations.

 

1 hour ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

I don't think it would be possible to combine the two approaches into a single tool because they are so fundamentally different.

In reality they are almost the same thing. Basically destructive gradient is immediately rendered/merged with layer instead of leaving active object floating above layer. Creating separate tool that does that should be quite trivial (it would be more work to create separate icon / modify GUI and documentation than actual coding - all the methods are already there). They could be renamed to 'Dynamic/Live gradient' and 'Fast/static gradient' or something like that.

Separate issue is that the gradient tool does not remember last settings (they are cleared after we change focus to different tool or layer) - I am not really sure it this is intended behavior in the first place, as other tools don't do that.

Edited July 17, 2019 by rygar

[Wosven]

I (think) I understand what you mean: with another program my default gradient is black to transparent, and I use it at different opacity levels and forms (radial, linear…) on masks.
With AP, I need to use brushes to obtain nearly the same result (it is not as effective and easy to not begin at the right position with a brush to obtain the same result that with mulltiple linear gradients, for example).

I love a lot AP, and manage to replace Toshop in my workflow (at first, it was part of a test, and a challenge). The most difficult part is with masks: not being able to copy-paste part of image on it, to use gradients this way… That's when I spend more time than needed to search other ways to otain the same result with different options. (But some modifications/evolutions in this other program are anoying me a lot too… in the end I suppose it's 50/50).

[rygar]

31 minutes ago, Wosven said:

ith another program my default gradient is black to transparent, and I use it at different opacity levels and forms

YES, EXACTLY.

The point is that this type of gradient that behaves like brush (so you can apply one after another few times) is very versatile - I used it in many contexts - to mask, to create quick pseudo-LUTs, to make quick gradient on rasterized text and so on. It is simple and FAST way of achieving some results. Just pick a color from palette, one move on canvas and bang, done. Power is in simplicity. Just like regular brush that we use all the time.

[fde101]

This could be done without an entirely new tool, as long as you are willing to settle for the limitations of only two colors, etc...  we would simply need an "Apply Immediately" checkbox / toggle of some sort on the context toolbar.

[rygar]

15 hours ago, fde101 said:

This could be done without an entirely new tool, as long as you are willing to settle for the limitations of only two colors, etc...  we would simply need an "Apply Immediately" checkbox / toggle of some sort on the context toolbar.

yep, but as you wrote before, this is primarily vector tool so there could be some confusion.

Separate tool could be strictly bitmap-related and as such, would be much simpler to introduce for developers (they also have to think about people that already are used to how things are now and not confuse users).

OTOH if it would be context sensitive (different behavior depending if we work on vector object or bitmap) or witch checkbox it would be less clutter in UI, which is also a plus, even if (little) harder to develop, I understand that more tools in toolbox in not good thing. Checkbox would be probably perfect (disabled by default so after update things would work as before until user changes it intentionally).

Edited July 19, 2019 by rygar

[FrankStahl]

Sorry, but I can only back-up rygar here: A gradient tool that works like the one in Photoshop is in *dire* need here. As rygar rightfully says, it is just not possible to paint several (bitmap) gradients on a single layer. This may sound like a small thing, but it is as with many of the "small things" missing in Affinity Photo: The fact that they are missing makes many workflows *extremely* and unnecessarily long winded and tedious, which is also the reason why I still stick with Photoshop for the moment, even though I own the complete Affinity Software Suite.

[cygaj]

I'm very sorry for resurrecting this thread, I was trying to find something more about gradient tool in Affinity and I ended up googling "affinity gradient tool is awful" and it brought me here. This is the thread I made myself several days ago in the help forum section:

But OP in this thread is way better at explaining with words what I expect of a gradient tool in a raster editing program. I made this video of making scribbles to demonstrate how important is a regular destructive gradient tool with a foreground-to-transparent setting to me

video: https://mega.nz/file/3MlAGC6J#QzXnfSnQ4TtOBVoMnjCmDMgI0kFuNzZS-MAy5GYFvgQ

In this thread I talked about how I probably have to live with it and accept it not being available or use another program for painting. But after looking at some options I really wish I could be using Affinity. But why oh why does it not have the basic gradient tool? I don't know anything about programming but as was already talked about in this thread and how I imagine, the guts of such tool are already in the existing tool, the whatever code that makes the gradient render. It's just a matter of making an alternate tool that is destructive to the currently active raster layer by doing the merging and stuff

I beg whomever can respond to this, please, please implement a normal gradient tool in your raster image editing program, please!

 

On 10/2/2019 at 3:35 PM, FrankStahl said:

A gradient tool that works like the one in Photoshop is in *dire* need here.

*DIRE*

[DylanG]

Bump.

1. Gradient Tool should remember current gradient being used instead of resetting everytime.

2. We should be able to essentially "paint" gradients quickly on-top of other gradients, on a pixel layer. (Just like Photoshop)

We need this, it's a simple addition, but would increase workflow ten-fold!

Edited October 18, 2020 by DylanG

[Dabi]

Made an account just to bump this post. I couldn't believe Affinity photo doesn't have such a basic tool until I've found this topic. Please consider adding a simple, destructive gradient tool that just draws gradients on top, and remembers the settings of it. I get the appeal of a non-destructive tool that you can carefully set up, but that feels more of what I'd expect in Designer, not Photo. Coming from Photoshop this is something I miss a lot, especially when it comes to drawing masks (not sure why I'd want a mask to be from white to gray, like it is by default now).

[Paul_Hol]

Another vote of support for rygar's request.

The gradient tool is something I've used a lot in Photoshop/Lightroom/Capture One for 20 years and trying to change working habits to accommodate the Affinity interpretation of the tool is far from easy.

[TheOtherNiki]

I'm going to vote to fix this, too. I'm coming from Photoshop, and the gradient tool there was so simple to use. I've watched numerous tutorial videos for the gradient tool for Affinity and I cannot figure out how to use it the way I want to. It's the most irritating thing about Affinity Photo. I just want to be able to colour in shapes with a gradient. I'm so frustrated with this tool.

[Nita Reed]

I see threads like this and they shock me...  Perhaps it's easier for a user who has never used photoshop in the first place?  Is it just that people are stuck in their ways and don't like "new"?  Honest questions...  I use Krita and I do not have difficulties with the transition..  I EXPECT it to be different.

I much prefer non-destructive any day...

My two cents.

[cygaj]

Just now, Nita Reed said:

I see threads like this and they shock me...  Perhaps it's easier for a user who has never used photoshop in the first place?  Is it just that people are stuck in their ways and don't like "new"?  Honest questions...  I use Krita and I do not have difficulties with the transition..  I EXPECT it to be different.

I much prefer non-destructive any day...

My two cents.

What's wrong with knowing there are more efficient way to do some things and wishing they were possible in a general raster editing program that tries to compete with the monopoly? And how you preferring a tool that is included from the one that is being asked for is relevant to the implementation of the latter?

It's not about the "new", it's about different tools being useful for different applications. Is it great that Affinity isn't trying to be a Photoshop clone and goes for new solutions? Yes it is! Is the feature discussed in this thread basic and missing? Also yes, very much

[Nita Reed]

1 minute ago, cygaj said:

What's wrong with knowing there are more efficient way to do some things and wishing they were possible in a general raster editing program that tries to compete with the monopoly? And how you preferring a tool that is included from the one that is being asked for is relevant to the implementation of the latter?

It's not about the "new", it's about different tools being useful for different applications. Is it great that Affinity isn't trying to be a Photoshop clone and goes for new solutions? Yes it is! Is the feature discussed in this thread basic and missing? Also yes, very much

I guess it's how it's related...usually comes off badly.  If someone prefers a tool/method, why not say so in a far less nasty manner?

I just don't see alternatives that take 2 to 3 seconds as "missing".  "Missing" to me is no way to accomplish the task whatsoever.  Actions, etc...  those things I get...the rest I'm just scratching my head...  Personally, I'm finding I can accomplish "actions" manually.  As a creative, the knowledge appeals to me more than the presets.  My skills have improved and, honestly, feel more authentic.  I like applying various art/math theories...and knowing how, what, when, where does not come in a preset.  When I first got Photo, I gorged on LUTs.  I never use them.  In fact, I keep telling myself I'll delete them...

I am transitioning from traditional to digital.  There are MANY concessions...alternatives.  The transition has been challenging.

If someone claims that work-arounds require minutes even...maybe.  But, not mere seconds.

Btw...I don't see Photo as trying to "compete" with PS.  Seems to be competing quite well.

For me, it's pretty basic...  One has to decide what is important to them.  I HATE debt.  Loathe it.  A subscription to something is rarely a choice I'll make.  And, honestly, I find Affinity products to be MUCH more user friendly than the others...which I've tried.

[kirk23]

I personally find APhoto  gradient more convenient with it's interactive editing.    Only miss quick gradient library from Photoshop.  Before they changed it recently and now I have to do 10 clicks to find something