Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nebulosa

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks, that was it! I upgraded recently from 1.7.3 to 1.8.4 and it changed everything, even the language. I had it set to UK English as a norm, and when upgrading it didn't recongnise the UK English and kept changing all the spelling over to US English. I had to change everything back to English UK in Character Language (before it was all set automatically to UK English, and you had to change it if you wanted to use another language). Anyway, it works now! Many thanks! Case closed!
  2. Replying to my own question, you can change this under text/insert/quotation marks/single or double quote, but it still has to be done one at a time. Any way we can add this to the preferences?
  3. Before Publisher 1.8.4, inverted commas or quotation marks were the 'curly' type, and now they are straight. For double inverted commas you have to use (alt + ") on your keyboard to open quote, and then (alt + cap arrow + ") to close quote. However, for the single quotation mark it's always straight. I know this isn't a major problem, but with previous versions (until recently I used 1.7.3) I didn't have this problem. This same question was asked last year, and nobody from Affinity has yet given an answer. Why did it work fine before, and doesn't work anymore since 1.8? Is there any way of doing this? I publish a magazine, and having to change this one at a time is daunting. Can anyone from Affinity reply, please?
  4. Actually I have no problem with 1.7.3. I guess there was a misunderstanding. With the beta version of 1.8.4 and at 85% jpeg compression, the file size when comparing to the same settings with 1.7.3 were relatively the same. However, under 97% jpeg compression documents weigh up to four times more! I personally see no difference between the results for the two compressions, so will continue to use compression at 85%. PDF/X-4 setting with 85% jpeg compression under 1.7.3 for 96 page document with 300 dpi colour images on every page weighed 192.5 MB. Same document with same settings under Beta version 1.8.4 weighed 182.2 MB. So slightly lighter than with version 1.7.3. However, since the difference is so small, it's not a major problem. That said, under InDesign my documents weighed around that size (less than 200 MB for a 96-page full-colour document), and frankly the images look the same! However, under 1.8, I have problems inserting or importing pdf files (as adverts). Won't accept imported pdf when setting under PDF/X-4, and says there is an error. Although will accept imported pdf file under any other pdf setting. I've noted this on another entry under bugs with Publisher. Unfortunately your colleague couldn't work around the problem, so I have to convert imported pdf files to tiff or jpeg files first. Don't have this problem under 1.7.3, although Publisher tends to distort text from a pdf file. I just noticed this recently, so I still have to convert any pdf file (not done in Publisher) into a tiff or jpeg file before importing into a Publisher document.
  5. And under the other pdf settings it weighs twice as much than under PDF/X-4, which is why I'd rather do the pdfs under X-4.
  6. As I mentioned before, it works with all the other pdf settings, but not under PDF/X-4
  7. For the time being I am converting pdf Ads to tiff in Photoshop. However, with an ad I created and for which I have the fonts, worked in 1.7.3, and doesn't work anymore with 1.8. So for the time being I'm only working under 1.7.3. And after using Adobe software for 30 years, I am not going back to renting it and paying it all over again. That's why I've switched over to Affinity. However, for the time being I am not upgrading to 1.8, as I have had no problems with Affinity under 1.7.3, aside of squashing some unknown fonts on imported pdfs.
  8. I already sent the files to your dropbox. Notice that the problem is only when I want to do a pdf with PDF/X-4, which is what I sue wit the printer. Other pdf settings accept the file.
  9. I mean to say, this only happens when you want to convert a pdf under PDF/X-4, not with the other pdf settings.
  10. I have Futura fonts as part of my fonts form my font files in my computer. I never had problems with this under 1.7.3, and now with 1.8 it is a problem if you want to convert a pdf file under PDF/X-4. Again, this didn't happen wunder 1.7.3. So, I acn't use PDF/X-4 under 1.8, but another pdf setting instead. Why?
  11. Hi, I'm testing beta version 1.8.4 for a magazine that goes to print. Most advertisers send their ads as PDFs. Unfortunatley, under version 1.8.4 when I put a pdf advert, Publisher changes the fonts, and under PDF/X-4 document won't print if there are sans serif fonts like Futura on a PDF image. Under Pub 1.7.3 I never had problem with PDF ads (although it tended to squash some of the fonts it couldn't read). Also, can't notice difference of quality under JPEG comprssion 85 or NEW default 98. Under 98 compression the PDF document is three to four times heavier than under 85. Again, image quality is exactly the same in both cases.
  12. Why has the default Jpeg compression quality setting been changed from 85 in version 1.7 to 98 in version 1.8? I don't see any difference in quality, besides the size.
  13. Again, it depends on what you want to print. I don't work with RAW photography, only with artwork usually scanned, or shot from a digital camera (no RAW) or done digitally. At 300 dpi, I don't notice any significant difference between having the compression at 85% or 100%. If the difference can only be seen by zooming 10 or more times on the image, who cares? It won't be seen in print. The main problem I had was the document weighing 6 times more when converted into a pdf with 1.8., or at three times the size under 85% compression. Now I don't notice that with 1.8.4. So it works fine for me. At 300 dpi you can't see the half-toning with the naked eye. Unfortunately, printing doesn't look as sharp as looking on a high-definition 10K digital screen. So I guess doing lossless compression is only for the digital domain and not for print, although we can argue this forever, and everyone will have a different opinion, but in the end, the longer it takes to print, the higher the costs, and no one will notice the difference. Happy Easter everyone!
  14. Yes, I know, but at 85% it works fine. Any lower can affect the result. I only noticed a light difference when zooming on both documents, but once printed it goes unnoticed, if you use high definition images. Might be more noticeable with images at lower resolutions. I guess if you want to print engravings it would be better to go at 100% or no compression for top results, and avoid the moiré patterns you get from working digitally.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.