Andy05

If you create the polygons without gaps in between, you might just fill them and remove all strokes when done. At least this would be way faster than recolouring each and every single stroke.

Confirmed. She's creating the PDF without any interactive elements in designer and then switches to Adobe Acrobat Reader (as the title also reveals). Actually, she even said something like "you don't always hit the perfect line when using the text/fill document tool in acrobat in order to fill in text", proving she's not using any predefined fields in the document which can get clicked for filling them.

On windows, this usually works: Try to click/press (and hold the keys!) in the following order: [ALT]+[CTRL] -> [right mouse button] -> [left mouse button]. As long as you keep all those keys pressed, you can move the mouse left and right for changing the size of your brush, whilst moving vertically edits the brush's hardness. And, as @carl123 already suggested, it might be very, very useful if you'd grow yourself some more fingers for this stupidly difficult procedure. But I'm not complaining as it could have been worse (i. e. additionally drawing circles on a touchpad with the nose in order to activate the "shortcut" mentioned above).

What? If you have the "image with 300 dpi", why do you (or your client) need it—again—in half of that resolution but with the same details/amount of pixels? Seriously, are all here printing just images directly from app to printer and rely just on what HP, Brother, Canon or whatever printing service decides what to do with the dpi in regards of output size? No layouts done here whatsoever? Unless you don't tell the printer/printing service what size the output should be, the "dpi settings" in your image are noting but decoration. As you mentioned yourself: You need to tell the size in millimeters, inches etc. Images are usually placed into a layout for printing. And if you seriously just print images directly, you at least determine the size of the output either in the app's printing dialog or in the printer's. If you "assign" 150dpi to a "300dpi" image, all you achieve is an automatically resized output of the image, which fde101 proved with screenshots above. Depending on your client's setup, this size won't even the same as you intended. "But it works this way for you thus far?" Good luck with your workflow then, if your client purchases a different printer or uses a different printing service. How will you explain to him if the images don't print in the same size on his the configuration despite your "perfect dpi settings"?

I'm not into CAD, so can't say if those programs benefit from wrongly defined "dpi settings" in images. But seriously? The layout for such a precision/map tool? I highly doubt that anyone reliable would create such scales on a per-pixel base. Maybe for some Chinese imports. I refuse to accept that those scales are created as images. I'm pretty sure, they are vectors.

It makes perfectly sense. Read my comment again. I talked about printing, not storing/saving images. You can save whatever dpi with your images, these setting change instantly when you chose the size of your output or when you place it in a document (this needs to have dpi settings for the desired output, not your image). It really doesn't matter, if you save your images with 10 or 100000 dpi. The quality doesn't change at all. The only reproducible combination for printing is size and dpi, if your want to have consistency. And that's something—as you mentioned yourself correctly—which can't be stored in an image itself. That's what I'm telling here all the time, and that's the reason why dpi settings in images are pointless. You assign dpi for output to a document where you place your image into. Or—in your example—your app or printer driver does this job for you when you print it (therefore the different sizes despite the same amount of pixels in both cases). Hence, having some weird combination of dpi and pixels creates unpredictable results, if you use different apps and/or printers when printing your image. You basically proved my point. You always should set the size when printing. Either by overriding your apps/printer's scaling when printing or within the document you place your image in. EDIT: I deem the creators of graphic software (yes, you too, Adobe!) guilty for this misunderstanding. And it's their fault that the customer services of printing services have to deal with scenarios like "Why did you print my image on the back of my postcard so blurry?????? It had 300 dpi as you requested! I assigned it correctly in photoshop, I just checked it!" — "Yes, but the image had only 150x75 pixels." ;-D

That's what I meant. Your printer driver scales the image on its own. So it's actually rather dangerous setting up some dpi with your image. It's upscaling a 72 dpi image and downscaling if "dpi in image" > printer's resolution and prints either with XXX dpi (whatever resolution your printer has). That's why professional printing demands a combination of size and dpi. Not pixels and dpi (latter is just wrong). Otherwise you don't have any control about the output, it can vary from printer to printer.

But even then—the size of the output is NOT connected to your dpi settings rather than by the image's pixel dimensions. Its size is determined by the document's dpi settings where your image is placed in. That's the difference. But then again, the document's setup will just override your lovely dpi settings for your image. If they print images without size information, they will get printed in different sizes, depending on the printer's resolution. Just try it - and you'll see. Use an image 1000 x 1000 pixels and set it to 300 dpi. Then again use an image 1000 x 1000 at 30 dpi and print both of them. Both will print at the same size if they are sent directly to a printer (without getting placed into a document or unless your software or printer driver does some funny stuff like resizing images for output in order to correct the wrong thinking about dpi settings—some consumer grade printers do that). DPI settings without dimensions of an image (not pixels) mean nothing. fde101 mentioned the only point I can think of why dpi settings for an image might be helpful. Because they determine how big an image initially will show up when you import it into your layout software/document.

When exactly is that relevant? The dpi are automatically determined during print if you print 1:1. And if you override this by changing the size the "preset" dpi change anyways. Exaggerated example, to prove my point. Create an image, 100 x100 px. So a very, very tiny one with very little details. Now, "assign" 3000 dpi. That should print 10 inch x 10 inch with 300 dpi. Try it again, with 10 dpi assigned to the original image and print it at the same size. Now what? Exactly, the quality is the same. The quality is still crap, no matter what amount of DPI you setup for the input image as long as you don't edit the amount of pixels, too. BTW, both images have been printed with 300 dpi in this example—given that's the native resolution of the printer. I don't know why so many people think that assigning some dpi to a PIXEL based image has something to do with the quality.

Maybe you also should mention, which of the "vector" brushes are really vector brushes. Otherwise the OP might get frustrated over noticing his strokes still being pixelated as almost all of the vector brushes in Affinity's apps are in fact pixel brushes on a vector path.

That's only true, if you work with images in a given physical size for output (i. e. millimetres). If you stay in pixels, the DPI don't matter at all. 1000x1000 pixels are 1000x1000 pixels, no matter if you "assign" 10dpi or 10000 dpi to your image. Your image neither will get bigger nor smaller by changing its dpi—unless you also resize its physical dimensions (amount of pixels).

Yes, it seems so.

Unfortunately, it's different for windows. AFAIK, browsers like Chrome don't copy the image (data type), but only the displayed data without alpha channel. You not only lose transparency but also all metadata and colour profiles of the image. Hence, this behaviour (transparent background in a PNG becomes black or white when pasted into any app) is not connected to Affinity's apps. Saving the image as PNG and importing it into the app you need it in, should maintain transparency and all other data on windows systems.

No, rename the "background" layer to "Layer XX" or whatever during recording the macro only once. This renaming will apply to all images which you'll run the macro for.

It should work like that, yes. But I'd still try renaming the layer. As that will make it easier for the macro engine to assign any action to it. Kinda bulletproof option.