mac_heibu

The color conversion from 190% K to rich black is completely normal. There are thousand ways to convert to CMYK black according to the chosen color profile. Nobody can know, which black you are preferring. The only way to avoid this and convert RGB black to K100 is a „device-N“ workflow, but the needed profiles are really expensive.

You probably used the outer handle (bottom right) to size/resize the textbox. There are 2 handles: The inner one scales only the box, the outer handle scales the box and it’s content.

Affinity documents are not limited for the use on one platform. You can use them on all platforms available (Mac, PC, iPad). But you should ensure, that the fonts, which you are using, are installed on the other machines/devices too.

It is nearly impossible to explain in short words a forum. And I won’t try to do this here. Best practice would be to have a very close look into color management and color profiles to understand this behaviour. CMYK and RGB don’t have and can’t have a physical-mathematical correlation and it is crucial, in which way you are converting a color into another color. (I tried to explain this in the thead I linked above.) There is a big difference, (a) which color profile your document has, and (b) if you convert an element in this document from CMYK to RGB or (c) if you do this the other way round and what profile your document has. The same is true, if you pick/create a color in a CMYK document using the RGB color ramps/wheels and vice versa. In my eyes, there is no issue at all regarding color conversion in the Affinity applications. Photoshop works exactly the same way. Just look at this example using a black color in a CMYK document: By the way: German members of this forum have a simple possibility to learn realy much about color management by having a look into these free books: https://www.cleverprinting.de/downloads/

But this would be a more than weird Workflow. Measuring the RGB colors via color picker may return the RGB values corrected and modified by your individual monitor profile. Color pickers always are suffering from these kind of issues. We had to fight heavily with these problems for example during the alpha/beta process of Adobe InDesign and later Adobe Muse. So simply go the „straight“ way and take the values from the color panel.

What a stupid logic! The only thinkable consequence for you would be in this case, not to use Affinity software, but you are going to steal it instead. I don‘t like criminal minds at all, so I really hope, they kick you out here as soon as possible!

Please, read the answers above! Don’t think it is not „plain and clear“. Of course you have to pay for a version 2 (when it will be released in some years), but you are free to stay with version 1.xx for ever and a day. Clear enough?

Ok, I nticed, that you attached a 1.7 document, which I now can open. But nevertheless: Either I don’t understand, what you are saying or I can’t reproduce your issue. Here the color values don’t change at all, when I open the document. Yellow always is CMYK 0,9,100,0, (RGB: 255, 222, 0) blue always is 100, 82, 0, 32 (RGB 0, 49, 114) The exact same values are shown, when I place the document in a coated Fogra 27 Publisher document. So, I really don’t know, what you are doing. Could you let us know exactly and step by step, what you are doing to get „wrong“ values.

… No more comments. Can’t open your document to check.

I bet, this is no issue at all. But we only can check, if we have the original document with the logo. As I said: It is an RGB doc with colors defined in CMYK – and that is the wrong way to go … I still don’t understand, what you mean by „… it in non-repeatrable“ Converting colors from CMYK to RGB and back? This of course causes different values each time you do it – by definition. If you want to know why, read my first answer in this thread:

What is „non-repeatable?????????? If I create a Publisher document using Coated Fogra 27, place the document in Publisher, embed your logo file and check the colors, I get for yellow 0.11.100.0 and for blue 100,82,0, 32. I get these values every time I open the document (of course). If this is right or wrong, one should have the original logo file (which I, as already notes, can’t open in Designer) and check, which profiles are assigned there. In addition: The logo document, placed in Publisher, is a RGB (sRGB) document, what explains color differences.

Can’t open your file on Mac. The actual Designer version on Mac is 1.7.3. The Designer beta doesn’t launch, because there is already a newer shipped version. The shipped version (1.7.3.) claimes, that your file contains elements created with a newer version. Nevertheless I bet, you are encountering a simple color profile issue. Bit I can’t check it, because the file doesn’t open.

What do you mean with „reading back and forth …“? I don‘t understand a word … Isn‘t it possible to give us a small(!) document with only one element and tell us exactly(!) what to do to reproduce your issue?

This is true for all versions 1.xx. You have to pay, when (a) version 2.xx will be released and (b) you want to buy it. If you (a) don‘t need or want a version 2 (whenever it will be published) or (b) future versions of your operating system will not prevent the app to work correctly, you will never ever need to spend money for the app, you buy now. It is just like your diesel car: You bought it and you don‘t need to pay for its a second time – unless you don‘t want a new one or future law will prevent you to continue driving it for climate reasons.

Actually, linked documents (designer, photo, publisher docs, PDFs, PSDs, …) aren‘t really only linked. An instance of these documents are kept within your file. If you want really linked element, use image files (tif, jpg, png, …).

If you need this, convert the text to curves and you are done. I – personally – really don‘t like it, to integrate every user‘s actual favorite feature into an app. If the Affinity team accepted the individual wishes of only 50, 100 users, the app would definitely be completely unusable. And, individual skills and creativity would be killed by a „For every use case an extra button“ strategy. Example? Who still knows, how to create embossed object edges? This was common Photoshop knowledge in „ancient times“, now, all a „creative“ needs, is a simple button click. Really creative? I doubt it. But: This „less buttons, more creativity“ is my opinion, nobody has to follow.

I think, something like this is done within seconds(!) by using single line artistic text and scaling it up to the desired size. No extra feature needed at all.

No, you can’t do this in Photoshop. I bet you confuse Photoshop with InDesign or Illustrator.

Yes Walt. But the initial poster started with pasting images from a different application. So there is no linking.

Yes, of course you can do this with placed documents (psd, pdf, afphoto, …). But in this case the double click is working too to open the document in a new window and edit it. You can’t do this with placed images (tif, jpg, png, …), and that’s what I was talking about in my last post. I assumed, you are talking about images, because you couldn’t edit it by double clicking.

I was wrong. You can’t edit a placed image by double click. But its source resolution remains untouched. You can check this by using the resolution controls top left in the application window. Don‘t expect every feature, you are using in Photoshop, to be present in a new application. Development needs time …

@woefi is correct. I, for my part, never(!) copy and paste images into press and print related applications. This may be the usual approach when using office applications like Word, but it isn’t the the way, which you should choose with professional image editing and layout applications. You have much more control by saving the image and importing it. Thus, you don’t risk problems by introducing the operating system’s clipboard as one more „player“ into your workflow.Depending on your operating system this may cause color space and resolution issues.

You are talking about Photoshop‘s „SmartObjects“ ( not „advanced objects“). Generally there is a similar Affinity feature: Every placed image is marked as „image“ in the „Layers“ panel and contains the full resolution source data, as long as you don‘t rasterize it (pixel layer). That means: Resizing, scaling, shifting shearing, rotating, … an image layer won‘t touch the original data at all. Only pixel layers will degrade their source quality by performing transform actions. Double clicking onto an image layer will open the original image in a separate window, where you are able to edit it.

Fine, but I normally don‘t re-read every post of a thread, which I already know.

@mschwerer, why on earth do you constantly ignore @Joachim_L’s proposal?