How to move what has been lasso selected?

[ZoltanE]

I just can't figure out how to move what I've just selected on a layer. I managed to move the whole layer or the selection marquee but not the contents of the selection. I found the "convert to layer" options but those either made an empty layer on top or copied the selected stuff so after relocating it I had to delete the original. I'm not sure what else to try.
I'm using 18.53, 64bit.

[Eurgail]

Hello,

you have to cut and paste the selected content; either in the menu bar edit -> cut, paste or with the shortcuts ctrl + x, v.
The convert lasso to layer function converts the selection lasso into a vector object.

[Herbert123]

This is the one thing that had me scratching my head as well the first time I started up Photoline!

In short, unlike any other image editor out there, a selected area of pixels cannot be moved without first copying or cutting those pixels in a new layer. A different way of working, although I have to admit that it would be nice if we could just use a lasso to quickly transform a bunch of pixels without having to create a new layer first.

I kind of have gotten used to it, but I still miss that simple option, because it breaks the workflow in certain cases, and merely takes additional steps and more time compared to other image editors.

[ZoltanE]

Oh I see now. Thank you guys!

[erikals]

PL
thank you for bringing it up, yes, hope they can give us an option....

but i really would want to be able to move the selected content in the same layer as well
this option is needed when doing this kind of operation dusins of times,
to avoid ending up with dusins, or ten-folds, of layers...

this is once again a big minus when working with GUI related stuff...

...and sometimes Photo montage related techniques where you receive a merged image file from a client, or where you have to use a similar technique when editing a photo with many objects spread all over the place...

PL

[erikals]

PL
a video showing some of PhotoLine's challenges,

http://youtu.be/U3vwtYHrPJg


PL

[Herbert123]

PL
a video showing some of PhotoLine's challenges,

http://youtu.be/U3vwtYHrPJg


PL

If I am honest, that particular example underlines the awkwardness of Photoshop's method, rather than the benefits. In Photoline (and Photoshop) I would add a solid colour background, activate the transparency for the icons layer, and remove the blue background. Then quickly select each icon, and cut it, and paste each in its own layer.

The way you have to move the selection in small steps in Photoshop to prevent holes with the background colour from appearing is rather inconvenient, and very frustrating in Photoshop (in my experience). Just cutting and pasting allows for much simpler repositioning.

Speaking for myself, I only miss this "feature" in Photoline when I want to do a quick pixel adjustment, such as extending a row/column of pixels. Then I would say the traditional direct pixel manipulation method without having to first cut out sections can be time saving in cases.

if actual content must be repositioned, I always avoided the direct manipulation method in Photoshop, because I feel it is too much of a hassle, and is a far too destructive worklow.

[erikals]

PL
yep, we disagree on that point, in that i'd like to have both options available

the PhotoShop option, and the PhotoLine option

do note that perfect transparency is often not possible in these operations,
due .jpg artifacts or other... you might say, just get the client to send a better file,
well, that's what we do, and they don't. when you get 100 files from different companies
it simply isn't time to get a hold of those files, or they never get around to it, or they
send you the wrong file... etc, etc, etc... believe me, been in this business for many years.

the PhotoLine way is just incredibly cumbersome when working with this kind of stuff,
especially when the client gives you "one of those" files where the source file is gone...

frankly i'm not going to touch PhotoLine again until this is added,
not complaining, just saying...

there is a reason why that function was kept in PhotoShop all those years, it wasn't laziness,
rather it proved to be a quick smart way to edit in certain cases.

the preferred method also heavily depends on in what field the artist is working

PL

[Herbert123]

I do agree it would be handy to have an option to work directly on the pixels - as I said, sometimes that workflow does have a distinct advantage indeed.

It would be great if we had an option in the selection tools to work directly with the pixels. Both workflows have their advantages and disadvantages, depending in the situation. Photoshop and other image editors allow for both, and it would be nice if Photoline would accommodate the same flexibility.

[bkh]

but i really would want to be able to move the selected content in the same layer as well
this option is needed when doing this kind of operation dusins of times,
to avoid ending up with dusins, or ten-folds, of layers...

PL has a "Merge down" command to "insert" the new layer into the layer below — assigning a key may be useful, then the workflow is similar to other editors having "floating" selections. PL used to have these floating selections, but I find the new approach more natural – I don't know about PS, but in PL, these floating selections behaved like layers, not like selections, but the UI didn't reflect this. Btw., in most cases, I retain the new layers because one often has to touch the same selection again — but admittedly, keeping them organised in groups can be a bit of a challenge.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[erikals]

PL
hi... yes, "Merge down" in PhotoLine,
the same as "Flatten" in PhotoShop...

PL used to have these floating selections, but I find the new approach more natural

but why can't we have both options...?

i can't work in PhotoLine with the current technique on certain projects, it's simply inefficient...
so there is no reason for me to use PhotoLine for those kind of projects... :/

am i really forced to stick to PhotoShop...?
just because of simple stuff like this can't be set as an additional PL option...? :/

PL

[erikals]

I do agree it would be handy to have an option to work directly on the pixels - as I said, sometimes that workflow does have a distinct advantage indeed.

It would be great if we had an option in the selection tools to work directly with the pixels. Both workflows have their advantages and disadvantages, depending in the situation. Photoshop and other image editors allow for both, and it would be nice if Photoline would accommodate the same flexibility.

thanks, yes, i do hope and cross fingers it will be included as an option...

PL

[bkh]

hi... yes, "Merge down" in PhotoLine,
the same as "Flatten" in PhotoShop...

I think it's different – "Flatten" in PS merges all layers into one, afaik, like "Flatten" in PL. So the difference betwween the two workflows is two keystrokes – one to create a new layer with the selection, and one to merge the new layer back. I don't know if PS is really simpler – can you just drag a selection (and how do you move a lasso without its content, then?), or do you need a keypress for that. Do you need another keypress to insert the selection, or is it merged automatically when you release the mouse key? Can you move the selection using the cursor keys as well? Just trying to understand what it is that makes the workflow so convenient for you.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[erikals]

PL
i understand it might seem slower if one haven't done a lot of this kind of work before

but like i said, imagine having to do this to 100 objects with jpg artifacts
(explained further above)

then the PhotoLine workflow is very slow.

selection movement in PhotoShop work like PhotoLine,
the difference, the content within the PhotoShop selection is moved if "Alt" is held down

but i explained much of this in further detail in the post above...


so an option to make this work would be very welcome
PL

[Martin Stricker]

the difference, the content within the PhotoShop selection is moved if "Alt" is held down

as far as I remember Photoline once worked the same way. I don't know why this was changed.
For some of work the way PS works is by far faster.