Andy05

Oh, interesting! Thanks, I might have to look at them, I just turned them down as "not compatible" without even further checking them. [EDIT: Confirmed by testing, the LUTs which claim to work with Affinity apps, work in AP.]

I wouldn't consider this spam. All of the overlay packs in that bundle are just jpg files (at least 3000x2000 px, as far as I've seen them), so will work without any problems in Affinity apps. Same is true for the background and texture collections, which are just (pixel) images. As for the brushes, the answer is "depends". I haven't checked them, but usually a lot of Photoshop brushes work unless they have some fancy dynamics/attributes assigned, which work in Photoshop only. The "Gig Design Graphic Bundle" also includes lots of stuff, which most likely won't work in Affinity (i. e. PS gradients and colour swatches) - but maybe I'm wrong here as I never tried to import such. As for its brushes, see above. Neither of the LUTs and Lightroom presets will work, they are Adobe-specific as are the proprietary Photoshop actions, which can't work in Affinity's apps.

Well, firstly it's not (check the link you provided a bit more closely). Secondly (as you're nitpicking about the "correct" way to complain for your paid product): If you consider this a bug as stated in capital letters in the title, why didn't you start your post in the appropriate subforum? You probably might have received similar responses over there, but ranting here with questionable attitude towards users who try to help you, appears as inappropriate to me.

True. I also still see some of the major features intentionally not happening before V2 as some kind of buying inducement for upgrading. I might be wrong, but from a business' point of view, it would make sense.

Yes, CorelDraw is more expensive, but that function exists in CD 2019 Suite SE costs which costs about 120 EUR with no discount. (I got mine for 89 EUR, about a year ago.) And the price has to be compared against APh plus AD at least as the CD suite also includes CorelPaint (among some more tools like a font manager etc.). Considering the non-discount price of Affinity apps Photo + Designer, the request isn't really that far off limits, I suppose.

Thanks for that link! He's tackling quite some advanced stuff in his videos. Subscribed.

That's yet another destructive process, tho, which will rasterize your text. Hence you can't edit it anymore. We're still waiting for a true vector warp function.

Though you can follow threads without showing up in the list by activating that option.

... or if the background isn't too noisy, (adjusted) frequency separation and masking on the high pass layer could be a quick'n'easy solution, too.

@Petar Petrenko Do you have a different layout of the forums (probably for mobiles)? @Elise Kleve For me, there's a button "Following" to the top right, which allows me to unsubscribe from a thread.

Yes, that's your problem. But if someone proves you wrong and you still claim you were right—then everyone reading the forums should care.

Agreed on this, that's why I never criticised your choice of apps, just the critique about which software version could be used (almost) forever without subscription. How could I argue about your workflow, mine is pretty much the same. Quite some people expressed their struggle in the forums with finishing common design tasks 100% with affinity's apps. They are great for—how did you say?—the first 75%. And they are quite good when it comes to creating mixed vector/pixel artworks. Lastly I can only hope that some of the essential features which exists for decades in every other software out there will find their way into V2.x and make it worth not only the purchase of the upgrade but will also allow finishing 99+% of the design works in the future rather than 75%. Though, unless launching V2 takes at least another 1-2 years, I doubt it, considering the pace of the previous updates. And even if I might purchase V2 right when it launches in order to support Serif, I most likely won't use it for critical production work until the "hey, I can't start this..., that's broken since the upgrade..."-posts have stopped here in the forums after release.

Maybe someone could fix the file for you. But until then, try this: Create a new document with the dimensions you need and place the corrupted file into that document as embedded. This way you should be able to access the "corrupted" file's content. That worked here, publisher complained only about the missing fonts.

LOL. I know, this doesn't help you with your problem, sorry. But that'd be a quite decent effect to use i. e. for lightly censoring stuff before posting your images somewhere in the web.

For the colours of the skin, use a reference image with the skin colours, you want to archive. Then create 3 colours: One highlight (not white!), one midtone and one shadow (not black!) from those reference skin colours. Try to mask the skin parts and add a gradient overlay with blend mode soft or hard light, assign the three colours you just picked from the other image as highlights, midtones and shadows. You might have to adjust the gradient a bit here and there. Key is, not to use just a single colour for areas when colourising.

*sigh* Seriously? So, now you added something meaningful for the first time in this matter. As all of your previous statements in this regard have been wrong. You can own Affinity apps forever as much as you can own Adobe's app. You can deny it as often as you want to—your initial claim was wrong. As shown in your last post, you needed to add some game changing facts in order to twist that claim into something true. Also, even all of the gratis updates have added tons of new features to the Affinity apps over the past years. Whereas Adobe rarely (if ever?) added any noteworthy new feature for free to an existing version. You had/have to pay for each of them as each new feature got implemented into a new version of the apps. And obviously, the Adobe apps you "own" also don't have everything you need. Or otherwise you might have too much money in order to waste it on your current subscription. Whether a version 2.x of the Affinity apps will have all functions you need or not—nobody knows. Until then you're right with at least one statement: You—like anyone of us—might have to continue paying for Adobe (or any other tool), which has all functions you really need.

I still "own" 😉 previous versions of various design software. Photoshop, InDesign and CorelDRAW are some of which I still need quite often (latter I need the most as long as we still don't have vector warp/distortions and true vector brushes).

Well, if you have the urge of quoting yourself, don't leave out the relevant stuff, please. That's what I was referring to. Not a question either, that's right. But a false claim nonetheless. You have been the one telling us you could own Adobe CS apps forever in contrast to Affinity's apps. Which is simply wrong. You can use your "owned", yet outdated Adobe apps as much as you could use "owned" (yet outdated, too) Affinity apps. No more, no less. It's as simple as that. That said, I couldn't care less about whether you're using Affintiy apps, Adobe apps, "owned" or via subscription. Neither do I want to talk you into using Affinity apps rather than Adobe's as I also still have to use other apps for some jobs as long as Serif's apps don't provide some of the functions I need.

So, what now? You have subscriptions you pay for? I thought you "own" adobe apps. Kinda contradicting yourself. Yes, you can still use outdated Adobe apps if you paid for them without the need to pay for the current versions' subsriction. But that's exactly the same with Affinity. You'll be able to use the 1.x versions as long as your operating system will allow you to do (you "own" Aiffinity apps, following your logic). But you'll have to pay for the next major version of the program (2.x). That said, it's not exactly the same, I suppose. You have to pay per month for a subscription of using Adobe's current products, whereas Serif's charging for such a "subscription" (aka using the current version even after an upgrade to a new major version) once every 5-10 years.

Maybe there's something planned like Getty Images -> expensive, exclusive Unsplash -> free (though probably the archive will grow in a way slower pace in the future), because there are already some approaches towards making more profit on Unsplash's side, i. e. Unsplash Hire or Unsplash Brands Basically a concept might be, keeping Unsplash's reputation as for "teasing" people for free into their stocks in order to pass them to one of their paid services or the premium stock at Getty.

Must have been a glitch of some sorts? The download link in Dan's post worked fine just now.

I guess he meant the welcome window, which Affinity apps start with after their first install (and which will be shown every start until deactivated). As for @Chosen Idea, he seems to have some serious issues with the affinity apps' rights on his system. To me, it seems like some other (security?) software blocks the apps' attempts of storing this data in i. e. some kind of appdata/configs or registry entries.

Hm. Since it seems like you're the only one still affected by this "bug", I guess the only solution would be sending in your whole system (hard- and software) to Serif so they could see what's happening. As it's hard to fix a bug, which seems to happen only on a unique setup.

Yeah. Main aspect was (as far as I understood), that you can't put two different letters onto each other with a congruent shape. No matter whether mirrored horizontally or vertically, rotated or any combination of that. Even slight differences (like the tiny tail you mentioned) seem to make a big difference for legibility. I might have confused in my example a different "dyslexic font" we tested back then. But that failed in the tests. This font is indeed "heavier" at the bottom like Alfred said. Maybe that's what make it easier for a person with dyslexia to recognise bottom and top of a letter. It's quite some years ago that I have last worked with that customer and haven't dug deep into the dyslexic matters since. What I still remember is some kids being capable of reading a whole page in minutes, which took literally 10+ times longer when using a font like Helvetica or Times New Roman.

No, OpenDyslexic won with ease. Hands down. But we had to test fonts which are commonly available without the need to install OpenDyslexic. Even though latter is open source, most schools don't allow the installation of own fonts. Hence, the test with "common" fonts as well. What I learned is that a font seems to need some "uniqueness" to each individual char. I. e. "b" and "d" can't be just mirrored, nor can b and q look alike, just rotated by 180°. Sometimes, just a variation of the thickness of one of the lines (i. e. the upper half of the "b" vs. bottom half of "d") already helped the kids massively. Often, single letters seem to get shifted around, flipped horizontally or vertically, mirrored etc. I've been told, that that's what sometimes happens at least to some people with dyslexia. So, even if the brain is messing around by flipping the letters, there's still something to differ. And that seems to help. Disclaimer: I'm by no means any expert in this matter. But that's what I just observed by following the procedures during the tests made.