3 ms·
> Affinity Photo is still not good enough for my use cases: the difference lies mainly in the many tiny details which make the workflow an efficient workflow C
by Toutouxc 5y ago
> Affinity Photo is still not good enough for my use cases: the difference lies mainly in the many tiny details which make the workflow an efficient workflow
Could you please provide an example? I mostly use Affinity Photo for simple photo development stuff and I'm curious where its limits really lie.
- riekus 5y agoI was really hoping to hop over to affinity photo couple months ago, but there was something essential missing with masking in multiple exposures, can't remember what exactly but everyone on the forums were complaining about that missing feature. Really liked the rest of affinity photo but it was a deal breaker for me.
- agys 5y agoA few: - Many dialogs (like “Resize canvas”, “Transform”…) don’t hold the values when re-opened for a second time - No “trim” function - Crop tool is imprecise, no snapping, no numeric input - Quick masking is strange - Macros don’t allow copy/paste operations but keep the initial buffer (?) - Not so good as tool for tiny bitmaps like icons (for many reasons) - No bitamp / indexed color mode - etc. As said, -many- smaller imprecisions and limitations don’t allow for an efficient workflow in my case, but I can work with it… But there are also interesting features which are well implemented: for example the Perspective tool is very good and “Impaint” works surprisingly well! The file exporters are much cleaner than the combination of Photosop’s “Export”, “Quick Export” and “Export for Web (Legacy)”.