Neue Testversion 19.40b11

[photoken]

Stunning.

???

I'm not seeing any difference between the linear and cubic interpolations. This is with a 16bpp image, a blue-to-white gradient, radial, mirrored, repeated. Whether I create the gradient as a vector layer or in a raster layer....

[Herbert123]

Stunning.

???

I'm not seeing any difference between the linear and cubic interpolations. This is with a 16bpp image, a blue-to-white gradient, radial, mirrored, repeated. Whether I create the gradient as a vector layer or in a raster layer....

It only interpolates differently when at least three colour stops are used.

[photoken]

It only interpolates differently when at least three colour stops are used.

Ah, now I see. I suppose it can be useful when one wants to de-emphasize the unblended colours of the colour stops. Nice to have, anyway.

[Herbert123]

It only interpolates differently when at least three colour stops are used.

Ah, now I see. I suppose it can be useful when one wants to de-emphasize the unblended colours of the colour stops. Nice to have, anyway.

It is super handy for quality gradients. Photoshop has a long-standing problem with gradient stop interpolation.

Compare:

test.png

Photoshop looks dreadful (first one on the left). The middle one is PL linear, and the right one PL cubic.

Krita and Gimp offer five(!) different interpolation methods for colour stops, and also allow a separate setting for each colour stop transition!

Ideally we would be able to control the transition between colour stops with a custom curve.

[photoken]

It is super handy for quality gradients.

Don't get me wrong -- it's nice to have the options, but which option to use depends entirely on the final effect that's desired.

For example, with this white-to-yellow-to-red-to-black "Repeat mirrored" gradient, I prefer the linear gradient:

Gradient comparison 02.png

The layers:

Gradient comparison layers.png

Ideally we would be able to control the transition between colour stops with a custom curve.

That would probably be best. Helluva complicated thing to implement, I'm thinking....

[Hoogo]

I have no idea why I should prefer one to the other. They look different, but not better or worse to me.
If it comes to creation of maps or something like that I could see a reason.

[Martin Huber]

Ideally we would be able to control the transition between colour stops with a custom curve.

This is unusable for most users. By manually controlling the transition between two color stops the user has to ensure that the derivation at the left and at the right of the color stop is equal. Otherwise there will be a visible edge (similar to linear interpolation).
With a RGB gradient with 3 color stops, there are 3 color components with different offsets to the previous/next color stop. Manually ensuring a soft interpolation in this situation is hard. With 4 color stops (3 curves needed), the curve in the middle would have to ensure continuity to the previous and to next range which is even harder.

Martin

[Herbert123]

It is super handy for quality gradients.

Don't get me wrong -- it's nice to have the options, but which option to use depends entirely on the final effect that's desired.

Naturally, and I did not want to imply that only cubic interpolation is nice in Photoline. I am just very happy to have both options, because linear often required additional stops to create more smooth transitions under circumstances. Now I just switch to cubic.

[Herbert123]

Ideally we would be able to control the transition between colour stops with a custom curve.

This is unusable for most users. By manually controlling the transition between two color stops the user has to ensure that the derivation at the left and at the right of the color stop is equal. Otherwise there will be a visible edge (similar to linear interpolation).
With a RGB gradient with 3 color stops, there are 3 color components with different offsets to the previous/next color stop. Manually ensuring a soft interpolation in this situation is hard. With 4 color stops (3 curves needed), the curve in the middle would have to ensure continuity to the previous and to next range which is even harder.

Martin

Agreed, and I would question how much control really is needed at this point - the gradients in Photoline look great.

Also, while in Gimp and Krita more gradient control is offered, the user interface to create gradients is a bit of a mess, and relatively hard to control and setup - especially compared to Photoline's excellent on-canvas controls.

[Herbert123]

A request for brush improvements. I am aware that Photoline is not aiming to be the best digital painting app in the world (nor do I think this is wanted or needed), but I would like to request a couple of features to allow for more control:

[*] Most important, aside from opacity (intensity), also a separate flow setting. Both opacity and flow would be separately pressure controllable, or both at the same time. That would be an awesome addition.
[*] wet edges
[*] pressure setting (one/off) for steps, and all jitter settings
[*] more jitter controls (hue, shape, saturation, luminosity,etc. see image below for inspiration)
[*] not only Wacom pressure, but also support for tilt, rotation and velocity.
[*] custom curve controls for all of these settings

For inspiration:

IMWLQgv.jpg

Result of separate flow/opacity:

opacity-and-flow.jpg

opacity-flow-comparison-diyphotography.jpg

[Herbert123]

Request for an improved lighting filter: on-canvas controls, bump maps/textures, and a live, non-destructive effect. I think this is very important for photographers, as well as for all sorts of other uses. It is one of the things I think really needs an update in Photoline to be able to compete with the competition.

The current lights filter is buggy in that textures and patterns do not work, although they can be selected.

On-canvas controls similar to the gradients would tremendously improve this filter. Support for infinite and point lights would be welcomed, as well as integration of bump maps. And a non-destructive option would be great.

Example:

lighting.jpg

[Herbert123]

...and one last request, and I will shut up

It would be extra-ordinarily useful if we could somehow link the transformation of two or more layers (not groups!).

I use virtual layers and copies of layers all the time, re-use masks, etcetera, and more often than not these layers, when transformed, should all be transformed the same.

Currently grouping, of course, can solve this - but not nearly for all cases. Suppose I re-use a mask from one place in the layer stack in a completely different location: some sort of transformation link is essential to transform both the same way. Now I have to transform both individually. With two layers it is doable, but with many more it becomes a chore to keep track of all the layers that need to be transformed the same.

So some sort of solution to link separated layers transformation would be a great addition, I think.

[Hoogo]

Currently grouping, of course, can solve this - but not nearly for all cases. Suppose I re-use a mask from one place in the layer stack in a completely different location: some sort of transformation link is essential to transform both the same way. Now I have to transform both individually.

Group your layer, then create the virtual copy of the group.
What you do to the group does not affect the virtual copies,
what you do to the layer in the group affects all other copies.

[Herbert123]

Currently grouping, of course, can solve this - but not nearly for all cases. Suppose I re-use a mask from one place in the layer stack in a completely different location: some sort of transformation link is essential to transform both the same way. Now I have to transform both individually.

Group your layer, then create the virtual copy of the group.
What you do to the group does not affect the virtual copies,
what you do to the layer in the group affects all other copies.

Ah, of course! Thank you.

Two independent layers with completely different content, however, cannot be linked this way, unfortunately. It would still be great to have an option like that.

[photoken]

I am aware that Photoline is not aiming to be the best digital painting app in the world (nor do I think this is wanted or needed), but I would like to request a couple of features to allow for more control:

PhotoLine needs to first implement the one feature it lacks (compared to the competition): the ability to create complex, non-symmetrical vector shading. Then we would finally be able to do complete illustrations exclusively as vector graphics. The ideal way to implement this would be with Diffusion Curves, but implementing "gradient meshes" would be a decent enough alternative.

Once we've got that, then PL's digital painting capabilities could be addressed. It already does a nice job of simulating "dry" media such as pencil, charcoal, pastels, and Conte crayons. And, of course, its outstanding variable-width vector drawing simulates pen-and-ink drawing to an excellent degree.

It's the "wet" media capabilities that are missing; specifically watercolour and oil.

By way of example, the only thing I liked about PaintShopPro was its "Artistic Media" tools. It uses a special "Artistic Media" layer and a set of "Artistic Media" tools -- the AM tools can only be used on the AM layer, and the AM layer can only be painted on by the AM tools. One can manipulate the AM layer for effects like keeping it "wet" or drying it. There's also a real nice Mixer panel that allows putting globs of colour on the panel and smearing the colours together, just like working with a palette knife and paint on a palette. The mixed areas of colour can be selected for use by the watercolour brush and oil painting brush. Nice.