anderpainter

Maybe it's some kind of coincidence, but it's happened on three different systems. 🤷‍♂️

This is pretty minor, but I thought I'd mention it in case no one else had: I've noticed that, when the built-in version-update process is complete, and you leave the "Start Paint.net" checkbox selected in the last dialog box, PN doesn't run. At least it hasn't on my PC, the last few times I've updated. Maybe it's a Windows 11 security thing, which requires us to run the app ourselves instead of having it self-launch? Obviously it's no problem to do so, but I thought you'd like to know.

I realize this is an o-o-l-l-d thread—but I wondered if anyone had revisited the idea of creating a Lossless JPG Crop/Rotation plugin to Paint.net? Several freely available graphics editors include these features—so certainly as mature a project as P.n could...? 😉

Thanks for all your hard work on these! BTW, the Color Balance plugin no longer appears (for me, at least) in P.N 5.0.1. Any idea why? It's very useful—I'd hate to lose it.

I realize this is a very old thread (sorry), but: The Color Balance plugin no longer appears (for me, at least) in P.n 5.0.1. Any idea why? It's very useful, so I'd hate to lose it.

Hi Rick and associated geniuses, I was saving a bunch of map images as low-color PNGs (a great feature, BTW), and realized that if I could see the number of colours in each image, I'd have a better idea how low I could set the number of colours in the saved images without affecting their quality too much. I found to my surprise that P.N didn't display this info natively. However, it was easy enough to find the Color Count plugin. Have you considered adding a Properties window to P.N (e.g. openable from the File menu), so we could view the current image's stats in one place? I've seen this in various other graphics programs. (Here's the one in IrfanView, for example, attached.) My other suggestion/request: Would you consider making the "Save / Save As..." preview image zoomable (via Ctrl+mouse wheel and/or actual " + - " buttons) so we could get a better look at how the image's quality is affected by: • Saving with fewer colors (e.g. as GIF, low-color PNG) • Saving with various JPG compression levels ...? That would be quite helpful. Currently, we must save images at various settings and open them to see how they're affected. Thanks as always for the brilliant software!

Thanks for this very useful plugin! It's particularly good when saving images as low-color PNGs, to get an idea how many colours can be sacrificed without affecting quality too much. I was a bit surprised to realize P.N didn't show this information. It seems like it may be worth considering adding a "Properties" window to P.N, openable from the File menu, with stats on the current image, as I seem to remember from other graphics programs. Maybe I'll post a suggestion about that. Maybe you'll agree, it'd also be helpful if we could zoom in on the "Save As" preview, to see that as well as the effect of saving with various levels of JPG compression. Only one thing isn't clear to me about the plugin: Why does it appear in Effects > Photo, rather than Effects > Color? It's about colors, right? It doesn't matter much, as long as one eventually finds it, but it took a bit of hunting in seemingly unlikely places. Anyway, I'm rambling... Thanks again for your nice work. 🙋🏽‍♂️

You're right—I just tried it again, and it works! I can't imagine what I was doing wrong. Anyway, sorry to bother you about it. "Asked this question previously"? You mean about antialiasing? I don't think so... I have, over the last 15 years or so, posted messages wondering why PN's dialog boxes persistently opened in the center of the editing area, requiring them to be moved each time they were used (rather than "remembering" their positions). But I never asked more than once per PN version. And eventually, you asked me to stop asking, which I did—though I still don't understand why the behaviour persists, or why it isn't at least as an option to change it. (And no, this isn't another post about it, just a reference to past posts!) Is it possible that's what you're thinking of? Cheers, A.

Hey guys, Don't get me wrong... I love PN and use it every day, despite a few pet annoyances I've been asked not to post about here anymore. ;?) I have a question I haven't asked, though (and which seems innocent enough not to draw fire from administrators for seeming too critical, LOL): When you make a selection on a layer and delete (or cut it, why won't PN antialias the edges to the layer below it? It'd save a tremendous amount of time blending the new edges with the colours below it (which I guess is the whole idea of antialiasing, right?). I know PN could do this, because its Eraser tool does it excellently. But it'd be soooo much easier if it could occur automatically, as part of the deletion, so I wouldn't have to zoom in and manually erase. All. Around. The deletion. Each. Time. I know effects plugins have been written to do this as a separate operation—and depending on the situation, sometimes they work okay. Why should they be necessary, though, when PN can already antialias so well? I also don't understand why the Select tools have a setting for "Antialiased selection quality" (or "Pixelated selection quality") when it doesn't seem to affect the selection at all. Would it make any sense for that to determine the results (antialiased or not) when the selection was moved or deleted? Or could another toolbar button be added that could turn automatic antialiasing on and off? (Naturally, you'd probably want it to be off by default, as that seems to be the preferred behaviour.) This seems like such basic, useful functionality, I also realize it could already be part of PN somehow, and I've just been too thick to find it. Thanks, A.

Come on, guys... Must I start a new topic just to avoid all this distracting, irrelevant gab? This topic's purpose is very simple: I've explained why, for years, I've wished PN had persistent dialog box positions (like every other graphics editor in the known universe). I've asked PN users who also want this option to add their support. (Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me the more users who request a feature, the more likely it may be added.) Because I'm proposing an optional feature—one that would not be activated by default, but must be activated by each user—there is no point cluttering this topic with talk about why you don't think the feature is necessary, why you wouldn't use it, etc. If you're not interested in this proposed optional setting, this topic doesn't apply to you—so please stop posting here! Thanks!

I know it sounds crazy, but there are actually lots of websites where people try to tell other people how they should be required to think, live or work!

(No, that's not distracting at all, is it? 😜 )

You must've missed this part of my post: It didn't say, "Please tell us why you think everyone should use PN the way you use it." If you wish, I'll be glad to start a different forum topic where people can tell everyone why they think other people should be just like them. (Oh, wait—we actually have a president like that now, don't we? 😁 ) It's more than just time! It's the introduction of repetitive, unnecessary tasks when you're trying to focus on creative work often involving fine detail. It baffles me why anyone would want boxes popping up right in the middle of their work when they're trying to pay attention to it. Nonetheless, I've made it as clear as I possibly could: I'm not asking everyone if this would make a difference to them. If you like being interrupted, that's great! I'm simply requesting an optional setting for those of us who like PN, but would prefer not to be repetitively interrupted when we use it. I'd sure appreciate that—thank you! (1.) For the last 30 years, it's been a standard, virtually universal feature of editing software—graphics editors, audio and video editors, desktop publishing apps, even word processors—to "remember" where users place their dialog boxes, and to reopen them in the same places. It's the primary reason "floating" controls were created: Not so you could move them out of the way over and over, but so you could place them where you wanted them, the way you can arrange objects on a real desktop, or tools on a workbench. (2.) Please, guys—this isn't a survey. If you don't care about this, that's fine, but please don't waste everyone's time telling us how "meh" you are about it, or why you don't care about it (or why you think everyone should be like you, LOL!). If you do care about this, please add your support here. That's all I'm asking. I should also point out that, despite its eccentric, GUI-philosophy-defying behaviour, I like PN so much I use it anyway! So I hope PN's developers will consider it a compliment that I'm working so hard here to improve it by requesting this optional setting. BTW, did I mention that no one would have to use this setting who didn't want to, because it would be optional ("left to one's discretion; not compulsory")? That it'd just be something considerate to do for the people who wanted this "feature" (which, again, in practically any other editor, wouldn't be given a second thought—much less have to be campaigned for)? I wanted to be sure to be clear about that. Again, it'd be optional (not required), so you needn't tell everyone why you don't want it. Right? Okay! Thanks! 😁

Like many of you, I've enjoyed PN for a long time. But it's always had one quirk I've found distracting and time-consuming: Whenever you open a dialog box, it appears right the middle of the screen, covering your work. Before you can continue, you must stop and drag the box out of the way to see what you're doing—even during the same session, when it should be quite clear where you'd like that box to be. I couldn't understand why PN's developers overlooked this basic functionality. Since the early '90s, the great advantage of floating controls has been the ability to place them where they worked best for you. Why would PN's developers unnecessarily interrupt and slow down their users that way? I've made several appeals over the years to add an optional setting to PN for it to "remember" the positions of its dialog boxes between sessions. But for some inexplicable reason, they still open smack in the middle of the editing area. Each. Time. You. Use. Them. PN users, will you please chime in here and add your support for an optional setting for persistent dialog-box positions between sessions? Again, please note that this would be an optional setting. If any of you actually like having dialog boxes open in the middle of your work, nothing must change for you—this option would be just for those of us who wanted it. Thanks very much for supporting this considerable improvement in PN's usability! Programming notes—non-geeks can stop reading here. 😉 Have PN keep an in-memory list of each dialog box's position (x and y values), starting with a default list with each box in the center. When the user changes a box's position, PN changes that box's coordinates in the list. When the user exits, PN records the list (in a registry setting or config file), including the current screen resolution. On next run, PN checks for a position list for the current resolution. If it finds one, it loads and uses it. If it doesn't, it starts with another default list (all center). When the user changes a box's position at that resolution, PN changes it in the in-memory list; then on exit, it saves the list for that resolution. This prevents the possibility of boxes opening off-screen if the resolution is changed between sessions.

Hi Rick (& other PN devs, if any), Almost 2 years ago, I started a thread here asking why PN still didn't have the option to automatically antialias edges around pastes and deletions. After all, one of the things we most commonly do is overlap elements, which requires antialiasing to have any chance of looking convincing. Only other users answered my post. (One user—obviously a big comma fan [maybe he was doing a Christopher Walken impression]—replied: "Because other Apps do, what YOU want automatically, that doesn't means that this is a good idea. What, if someone NOT want antialised edges?" But again, this could be an option, just as it's an option now when making lines, shapes, text, etc. [see image].) Last week, I needed another antialiased edge in PN and, as usual, had zoomed in and was laboriously going around it with the Eraser (which, mysteriously, does antialias). "Why is this necessary?" I asked myself for probably the 100th time. "I know," I thought, "I'll ask on the forum", forgetting I'd already asked about it in 2017. I then found my thread here (but didn't notice I'd started it, LOL), read the replies, and posted: Rick, you then finally replied: You then asked me not to "necropost", and closed the thread—which is why I've started this shiny new one, to try to follow up on this in an acceptable, non-chronologically-offensive manner. 📅 😉 Okay, then: 1. Why, exactly, is it so "complicated" to antialias edges around pastes and cuts, when PN's tools can already do it (see image)? Is it somehow more complicated to antialias around pastes and cuts than around draws and erasures? 2. Even if you would have to add AA code for the first time (e.g., if PN's tools came pre-written, and you plugged them into PN rather than coding them yourself), aren't there AA algorhithms one can use, rather than having to "reinvent the wheel"? (If PN's tools did come as pre-written modules, that's a commendable case of not "reinventing the wheel", too.) I mean, AA has been around since the '70s... It's not that arcane, is it? (I did a quick search and found lots of explanations and examples.) 3. If a user asks a legitimate question about a program's persistent limitation, and a couple of years go by without a reply from the developer(s), why is it offensive to give the thread a nudge in case it escaped the devs's attention (thus giving the devs the benefit of the doubt, too, right)? (#3 isn't as important, so skip it if you prefer... I just couldn't help wondering.) Don't get me wrong. We all deeply appreciate the work you do on PN. And obviously I like it well enough to keep using it despite this quirk. (I'm still using it despite the dialog boxes that don't "remember" their positions and always open smack in the middle of the editing area, requiring you to drag out of the way each time you use them, even in the same session—another puzzling omission, but one that even I could code, and I'm just a tech writer!). BTW, I've had coffee... Sorry about that. ☕😜 Still, though, y'know? Thanks, A.

I must agree. It's a limitation of PN I've never understood.

Thanks for the update, and for all your hard work in general! Now won't you please consider having PN "remember" the positions of dialog boxes—if not from one session to another, then at least during the same session—so we don't have to keep stopping to drag them away from the center of the editing area... every... single... time... we... open... them... ? If the boxes were non-modal (as in GIMP), and we could just leave them open, it wouldn't be so bad. But you can't resume using PN without closing them—so it's drag, drag, drag... If you're worried that users may change their screen resolutions between sessions, resulting in off-screen boxes, just have PN check the current resolution before showing them—and if necessary, adjust the box's coordinates to place it back on-screen. That's just good coding, in any app. Okay, I'll stop bothering you now—at least till the next version turns out to have "attention-hogging" dialog boxes too.. ;?)

Thanks for restoring my beloved keyboard shortcuts! And sorry again that I overreacted. :?P What—there are other things in your life besides P.n? :?D Anyway, I wasn't trying to order you about. (I didn't say "You'd better update your documentation now!") It was just a reminder, as I assumed the changes were permanent (again, me overreacting).

Thanks for your replies. Sorry, I was just surprised to find that suddenly the commands I'd used, like, forever, did nothing, and that I had to hunt down the explanation elsewhere. I can certainly get by with the menu combinations you described, and will be grateful when you restore some (any) actual key combinations for them. And thanks for putting up with us moody artist-types. ;?)

You'd better update your online documentation's Keyboard & Mouse Commands page, too, as it's no longer accurate.

I just installed PN 4.1, and found that the keyboard shortcuts for Brightness/Contrast (Ctrl+Shift+T) and Hue/Saturation/Lightness (Ctrl+Shift+U), which I've used for many years, no longer worked. I now see the 4.1 change log says: "Freeing them up for other functionality"? What the heck does that mean? And now, rather than pressing a quick key combination, we must do all this: 1. Remove hand from keyboard 2. Place hand on mouse 3. Move mouse pointer to menu 4. Click 5. Find command on menu 6. Click command 7. Return hand to keyboard ...every time we want to make one of these basic adjustments? Do future plans include making us stand on one foot, do celebrity impressions, or do anything else to slow down and complicate our work? I realize some people find it difficult to remember shortcuts, and prefer to interrupt their work to shuffle through menus. And that's fine. But it's a big step backward for me—and, I'm guessing, lots of other P.N. users, too—and a very presumptuous and inconsiderate change to make without even consulting anyone.

Yes, I've learned it's important to log out before switching to an external monitor or back to the built-in display, but haven't seen any other circumstances where it made any difference. I've tried switching to one of the rounded-off scaling values. Unfortunately, 200% makes things too small for me to see clearly, and 300% makes everything ludicrously big. :?( Thanks for the suggestion, though. Are all graphics apps having these difficulties? Even major players's, like Adobe's? Somehow I imagined they'd have the resources to deal with it, considering many of their commercial customers must be utilizing the latest technology. Otherwise, I guess we'll just have to wait till Microsoft, graphics-adapter companies and software authors catch up with the technology, right? Could this also explain why PN's palettes jump around the screen when I try to move them—because it's trying to move them to fractional coordinates that don't exist? If so, couldn't you just include a simple rounding-off function before those values are used—or, depending on the programming language, just declare those variables as integers?

I'm having a devil of a time getting PN to work right on my new Dell XPS's QHD (3200 x 1800) display, which by default is scaled to 250% under Windows 10. Typical problems: • Tool cursors remain unscaled, so small that you can barely see them. • Palettes spontaneously disappear. When I try to move them, they flicker and jump around the screen. • The open-image picker either doesn't respond to clicks, or switches to different images than the thumbnails you click. • When you view a pasted screenshot at "actual size", it's gigantic. Any plans to address this?

I followed your instructions, but right-clicking in GW's window has no effect—no context menu or anything else. What am I doing wrong? I realize that. I was referring only to being able to see the other layers while using it—not using it on more than one layer at once, if that's what you meant. Considering many of us would use this to adjust perspective in relation to other layers, it'd also be very useful to be able to move the layer being "warped", then make further adjustments, without having to close and reopen GW each time. I don't know if PN's API would permit this, though. Thanks for your help!

This is EXACTLY the kind of selective-stretching feature that should be a standard part of Paint.net. I was disappointed, though, to find that it opens the current layer in a separate window to stretch it. Typically, I'd use this to distort the selection to match the size and/or perspective of the overall image (for example, pasting a door onto a house photo). Without being able to see the complete image, it takes many freehand attempts to get the changes right. It'd be so much easier if the plugin superimposed the warp grid over the normal editing area... Is there a reason you avoided doing that? Also, no Undo (Ctrl+Z)? Without that, even the slightest miscalculation requires you to start over. Each. Time. Please consider adding this as well.