Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Algr

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 27, 2022
321
356
Earth (mostly)
Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo each have "lite" versions of the other program built in. The same is, I think true for Photoshop and Illustrator. Pixelmator has some simple draw tools built in. But in most cases, you have to run both programs, and decide which one is best to be the "home" application of your document. It would be so much more convenient if they just made one program that handled vectors and bitmaps at full power. Why doesn't anyone make a program like this?
 

splifingate

macrumors 65816
Nov 27, 2013
1,248
1,045
ATL
I have a screwdriver, when I want to turn a screw.

I also have a hammer, when I want to set a nail.

In dire circumstance, I have used each in cross-purpose to do the reverse, but the experience was neither simple, nor enjoyable ;)
 

buttongerald

macrumors 6502
Jan 29, 2016
338
629
St. John's, Newfoundland
It would be so much more convenient if they just made one program that handled vectors and bitmaps at full power. Why doesn't anyone make a program like this?
7w8ooh.jpg
 

Slartibart

macrumors 68030
Aug 19, 2020
2,892
2,596
In relation to gimp/inkscape - that’s probably historic… most likely for many programs. And there are still users out there who prefer the programs they use “unbloated”. 🤓
For commercial software there is another aspect of the “money”-argument IMHO: why should I pay for something I do not need, like a full blown vector drawing-engine in my photo editor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: splifingate

Algr

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 27, 2022
321
356
Earth (mostly)
why should I pay for something I do not need, like a full blown vector drawing-engine in my photo editor?

It's not really their choice though. Someone who DOES need both ought to be a prime customer. Instead they are stuck awkwardly copying data back and forth between two programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allen_Wentz

Algr

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 27, 2022
321
356
Earth (mostly)
I prefer the apps being separate. Just because you can put a table in Word and PowerPoint doesn’t mean it should have the full functionality of Excel. Both apps have different use cases, which makes sense for them to be separate.
I just see it as a bunch of extra steps with no benefit. For example, an image contains both photos and line art, and I need to hit both with the same filter, or extend the photo so that the line art will fit. The draw versions of the tools are right their, but they don't work on the photo, so I have to launch another program to do the same thing.

Sure if I am doing something simple that is out of my field, it might be helpful to have a reduced set of simple tools. But I should choose that, not some quirk of economics.
 

Allen_Wentz

macrumors 68030
Dec 3, 2016
2,695
2,979
USA
Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo each have "lite" versions of the other program built in. The same is, I think true for Photoshop and Illustrator. Pixelmator has some simple draw tools built in. But in most cases, you have to run both programs, and decide which one is best to be the "home" application of your document. It would be so much more convenient if they just made one program that handled vectors and bitmaps at full power. Why doesn't anyone make a program like this?
Markup in Apple Photos does both. Badly, but the benefit of having both in a single app is huge. Including to someone like me who owned and used Adobe's pricey Design Collection for decades before leaving Adobe for Affinity because of issues around Adobe CC and users' intellectual property.

Photos is like a lite/klunky/unreliable version of PS+LR+Illy. It could be a very good app if Apple simply gave it some love. But what goes on in Apple's app software thinking is impossible to grasp. Apple may just be waiting to build enough user base to then kill Photos like they did Aperture and MacProject.

Interesting aside: just like Adobe apps, Photos/Markup just works hella better when more than enough RAM is present. My Intel MBP with 16 GB RAM routinely loses image edits even running Photos/Markup all by itself, a huge time consuming PITA. Whereas my M2 MBP using ~50 of 96 GB RAM never loses edits; not once, even though I now routinely keep half a dozen greedy apps open concurrently.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: splifingate

Allen_Wentz

macrumors 68030
Dec 3, 2016
2,695
2,979
USA
I prefer the apps being separate. Just because you can put a table in Word and PowerPoint doesn’t mean it should have the full functionality of Excel. Both apps have different use cases, which makes sense for them to be separate.
I disagree. We are not talking about Office apps. Vector image edits and raster image edits often have exactly the same use cases. One frequently does both vector image edits and raster image edits to the same image for the same project.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AlumaMac

Herbert123

macrumors regular
Mar 19, 2009
225
235
Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo each have "lite" versions of the other program built in. The same is, I think true for Photoshop and Illustrator. Pixelmator has some simple draw tools built in. But in most cases, you have to run both programs, and decide which one is best to be the "home" application of your document. It would be so much more convenient if they just made one program that handled vectors and bitmaps at full power. Why doesn't anyone make a program like this?

PhotoLine integrates both bitmap and vector in one application. The bitmap tools are more powerful than the vector tools, but it still features a few vector tools that are not (yet) available in Affinity Designer (non-destructive blend tool, vector patterns, and a few others).

If more vector tools are required PhotoLine hooks up with live round-tripping to InkScape. But in general PhotoLine's vector tools are pretty good and it is indeed a boon to have excellent image editing tools in the same app.

PS Fireworks also combined the two in one application. There is another one, but I forget the name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allen_Wentz

Herbert123

macrumors regular
Mar 19, 2009
225
235
Yea, that is probably the answer. Amazing that it even applies to The Gimp/Inkscape though.
Perhaps because both are independently developed open source projects by entirely different communities of developers? ;)

And each app specializes in one thing: vector or bitmap. It has nothing to do with money. Merely the focus of the volunteering developer communities.

Same for Krita: that software focuses on digital painting/art. It does incorporate some vector and image editing functionality, but only what is required for that specific task, and no further. The developers have stated before that their interest is not in making a Photoshop alternative.
 
Last edited:

splifingate

macrumors 65816
Nov 27, 2013
1,248
1,045
ATL
Not a good analogy, as there is no such thing as a single fastener that needs to be both rotated and hit at various points.

Do take a moment to step-back, and contemplate the obvious irony inherent in your latter assertion ;)

Designer and Photo both have mini versions of the other precisely because so many projects need elements of both.

I really do like the idea of one-tool-to-rule-them-all . . . unfortunately, there are varying grades of tools, and I prefer very specific tools to do what I find that I want to do.

YMMV ;)
 

splifingate

macrumors 65816
Nov 27, 2013
1,248
1,045
ATL
I don't get it.

Yeah, a bit of a stretch . . . found it amusing that you stated that no object exists, yet you were looking for a tool to manipulate said non-existent object *shrugs*

There are no screws that need to be hit, or nails that need to be rotated. But putting text and lines on a raster image is common as dirt, and I draw vector cartoons and characters on raster backgrounds.

Most of my dedicated photo manip these days is in either Affinity Photo, or PS.

When I'm really designing something, I use ADesigner (which handles bitmaps and precise vectors, together, extremely well).

Last project I did was for a fellow who was starting his business, and needed a card design, and some magnets for his truck. We hashed-out some ideas on paper, and I dropped photos of these into Designer. We then worked-through the process of transforming these into vectors. It was highly interactive process, and the ability to role-play tons of ideas/variations on multiple layers (hiding/showing) was extremely productive.

These were going to print/vinyl, but we raterised some proofs for sharing.

I also am tasked (in my regular work, on occasion) to create wire grids on walls&houses (on which climbing vines will grow), and I need to know exactly where my anchors must be set. It's not very professional to leave a bunch of erroneous pencil/pen marks (or drill holes) on the side of a $10M new construction ;)

So, I take a photo of where it is to be made, drop that into Designer, get everything to-scale, then precisely plan-out and map my anchor points down to the millimeter.

I really don't think in either raster or vector. They are just modalities I use together to help take an idea and turn it into a real-world object.

My needs are simple--and ad-hoc--and I've found Designer to be an exceptionally functional tool for accomplishing such.

To-your-point, however, Xara might fit your requirements for a all-in-one :)
 

splifingate

macrumors 65816
Nov 27, 2013
1,248
1,045
ATL
I completely forgot Xara existed as a company up until I read this. I used to play with one of their pieces of software way back in the day, Xara 3D or something I think it was?

I had no idea they were still around, I wonder what their current software is like..

Finally found the (unfortunate) important detail in the 'details':


"We do not offer a native Mac version..." *hrmph*
 

Algr

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 27, 2022
321
356
Earth (mostly)
One frequently does both vector image edits and raster image edits to the same image for the same project.
I wonder if someone could take the code base for The Gimp and for Inkscape and combine them somehow, with each element in a document activating one or the other codebase.

You'd then want to merge the interfaces so that equivalent tools are in the same locations and work the same way. Not trivial, I suppose.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.