Jump to content

mac_heibu

Members
  • Content count

    636
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mac_heibu

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

790 profile views
  1. I totally disagree! Personally(!) I think, the triangle graphics conflict with everything, what we call a „logo“. One can discuss about the new square ones, no question, but these are „logos“!
  2. The „PDF resize issue“ is a different bug. Already fixed, it reappeared in the last beta.
  3. I am quite sure, it won‘t. I think, it is the time, when existing bugs and glitches are ironed out to meet a release date at about end of the year. Completely new features will certainly be a matter of a subsequent version. Would be to dangerous to risc new bugs and side effects by integrating completely new features. I strongly assume, that „Pubisher 1.7“ reached the „feature freeze state“.
  4. ????? Font, (partially) embedded in PDF make no licensing problem and embedding is widely (if not everywhere) allowed. So I can hand out PDF without any problem.
  5. Converting text to curves is no option at all for me. Converting fonts means, you are losing all hinting informations of a font, therefore losing quality especially in digital printing, which normally uses lower output resolutions. I never collaborate with print providers, who want fonts being converted to vectors.
  6. … and exactly this (archival/retrieval purposes) prevent me from using packaging. Normally, in my work, assets never exist only as a final version. There are original source files, which are integrated into a final composing, there are bitmap sources, converted to vectors, there are RGB files, which are finally converted to CMYK files and, and, and … Packaging would only collect the final, placed version of an asset and not all the auxiliary, source snd preliminary files, thus separating the end result from all other working files. Therefore my way is a long time tested folder system for every project. Packaging for me would be only useful for handing over files to a print company. But these times are gone decades ago. PDF rules.
  7. mac_heibu

    Letter spacing bug

    And why is this a „bug“?
  8. At the moment, packaging of Publisher files isn’t necessary at all. Even if assets are linked (not embedded), they are stored within the document for speed reasons (and maybe other reasons, we will see, when integration Publisher <> Photo <> Designer is implemented). That means: Even if you have no access to the original assets, this will cause no quality degradation in print at all. Concerning fonts: I know, some community members have a different opinion, but handing over fonts to a collaborator and/or print company is definitely not allowed by most (if not all) commercial font companies. Even Adobe – though providing a „package“ command in InDesign and Illustrator – doesn’t allow this. Here https://helpx.adobe.com/fonts/using/font-licensing.html#act-pkg you can read the following:
  9. Simply one page with respective guidelines. As a long time InDesign and QXP user I did it always this way, although both apps have a multipage/spread feature.
  10. mac_heibu

    Affinity Photo Customer Beta (1.7.0.104)

    Why oh why are people doing this (moving or even renaming apps)? On a Mac, the applications have to reside within the application folder. Otherwise you will run into issues. One issue is, that you can’t use Publisher, because it expect another Affinity app residing in this folder.
  11. mac_heibu

    Affinity Photo Customer Beta (1.7.0.103)

    Besides that, this request implies at least 4 options: Doing nothing ( the „triangles“ remain), cropping the image, until the „triangles“ have disappeared, enlarging the image content, until the „triangles“ disappear, but keep the image dimensions as they are, applying „content aware fill“ to the „triangle“ areas, as it is possible in Photoshop. … and every option of course with the choice between destructive/undestructive. So, to satisfy every user, this small feature has to be blown up immensely only to avoid a tiny bit of manual work. And, believe me, there are dozens of features which can be bloated this way to support user‘s laziness.
  12. mac_heibu

    Affinity Photo Customer Beta (1.7.0.103)

    Yes. Everytimes there is more than one use case — introduce a checkbox! In no Time we will have an application, which drowns us in tons of checkboxes and buttons. My credo instead: Less buttons, more creativity!
  13. mac_heibu

    Affinity Photo Customer Beta (1.7.0.103)

    Please NEVER do this! Is may make sense for a special use case, but not generally. Perhaps I need a certain image size and don’t want these „triangles“ cropped, but retouched.
  14. I bet, your hope won’t be fulfilled! The time for building in completely new features certainly is over. The Affinity team now is focussed on bug fixing. But why should everything be built in in the initial release? What would you expect from the following releases?
×