Andy05

That quote is so absolutely true! I also found out that the results vary a lot depending on the motive. There's no "best AI" for all kind of images. One really should try multiple pages and compare the results.

Just a random shot, but did you also copy the gmic subfolder, not only the *.bf8 plugin?

I just wanted to post/ask the same. I got nosy about the plugin and tested it from the page above (x64 version). And it runs without problems here.

Hm. 2000 by 2000 px max? Even their biggest pack "Enterprise" isn't offering more (only more images/month and "prioritised" batch processing). Not very convincing for a paid service.

In that case, I'd just say "The moon exaggerates the surreal intentions", if I'd be the artist. 😉

Hm. Is this intentional (i. e. to create an artistic surreal look)? But the reflections don't look real. Given the distance and height of the viewer's/lens' position, the trees are too short and the moon is completely off place (just look where the reflection is placed within the cloud'. In the sky, the moon sits on the opposite side of the cloud).

Version 68 of the Google Browser introduced this "not secure" warning for pages which don't use a secure connection (HTTP vs. HTTPS / SSL) with that pages. Other browser developers copied this behaviour since. That doesn't automatically mean the page is a risk for your system. More info, i. e.: https://www.digicert.com/dc/blog/not-secure-warning-what-to-do/

Thanks for confirming! The font reminded me of some "elegant serif" attempted variant of one of those "Kindergarten"/Kids fonts which use random and inconsistent letters. (Though badly done and latter usually make more sense.)

Besides the kerning of most of the texts here should get some adjustments—is it just me or is the font used for "The Lewis Sherman Orchestra" horribly unbalanced and really unprofessionally looking? (Not your fault, it's the font designer's choice.) In particular the "S" looks out of place to me.

»Damn' planes! I got me an own Learjet at 50% off and now I'm sitting in the cabin, pressing buttons and yelled where I wanted to go! Yet... no service show up, and the stoopid plane didn't even start! I guess this plane just isn't for me! I bought a ticket for a flight last year and everything in that plane worked as expected.«

Indeed, whenever one runs out of arguments, it's better to end the discussion. On a serious note, there are quite some things, which could backup your statement "you cannot work professionally with Affinity". If you check my history of posts here in the forums, you might notice that I often agree in this. Yet, the inability of working with every single file out there which is in a native file format of a completely different program surely isn't among these. Jowday was right when posting:

As said, this is certainly an unwanted behaviour then. I'd report it in the bugs' section so the devs can have a look into it.

Firstly, Photoshop also has bugs. (That's what bugfixes for.) Secondly, we've been talking about a function and if it's working as advertised (it is) and not about bugs. If a bug-free program is what you are searching for... well, good luck then.

Probably the ones you used before had just sheared, rotated and disproportional resized objects, but no warped ones in it? As long as there's no warping/distortion, most of the files with smart objects work. Or did the example file you posted above worked in a previous version? If so, this might indeed be an issue which the devs might want to look into.

Well, if you read up, you'll see that Designer1 claimed that the software isn't usable for "professional" work. That's what I disagreed with as such statement is kinda weird if you can't work "professionally" just because of the lack of full support of importing all kinds of smart objects of a third party software. And still, the vast majority of PSDs with smart objects are supported. Except for i. e. those with warp functions used in them. I don't know if there are other issues, too - I'm not using premade mockups for my work as I don't want to pitch over the same mockups to a customer which dozens of "professionals" also might have sent already. Hence Serif's not using the common terminology of "full support" in his advertising. And if you absolutely have to work with PSD files (other than mockups) in order to do your job, I'd never try to work with a program, which isn't using the format as a native format. 'cause that's not professional.

Hm. I was thinking the exact opposite. This work is really fantastic, as it's using just a minimum of objects. I've seen far simpler designs with multiple times more objects to create them.

Affinity can't deal with (smart) objects in PSD files if there's a warp effect applied to them.

They don't claim that each and every function of photoshop's smart objects is supported. Using the term "can import psd smart objects" is correct (they don't claim "can import all..."). And in the app itself, it even states "where possible", telling everyone with some common sense that it's not possible in all cases. There's a lot of stuff which can make it hardly possible using affinity apps for professional use, but the import of foreign smart objects is not one of the important things here. Seriously, if one can't work "professionally" without using templates for a different program and one can't afford latter, one might has to overthink the "professional" status. Furthermore, this does not render my previous statement incorrect at all. A professional tool should pay for the tools needed. Period. If affinity's apps don't provide the tools you need, it's not the professional tool you should buy or use. It's really as simple as that.

Check their requirements for sending layouts. Most provide a template for you to create your work, but request a PDF as printable source. Other than that, I'm with @wonderings, try to find a printing SERVICE. It might look more expensive at first, if you pay for services, advice and so on. But you'll pay much more with a discount printing "service", if you don't know how to produce exactly, what they need. Latter will charge you for the result, no matter if it's even remotely like what you ordered. A good service might be more expensive, but will help people with creating a usable sources for print.

Any format which isn't supposed to be editable by nature, usually it's PDF for printing services. For example, if you send an open file format like AF's files with text in it, the service would also need the same fonts you used on your system. This might cause copyright issues, if you send them a commercial font. This problem aside, the "same" font might behave slightly different on different systems... This is just one example why it's better to present a closed format (like PDF) to the printing services.

"Professional" work should pay for the tools you need. Hence, if you need Photoshop's features which Affinity apps can't provide, your jobs should pay for former app.

Just wondering. Why would you want to send an open file format (like InDesign or Affinity files) to a printing service? This is a pretty reliable source for creating many troubles and problems for print.

Unabhängig von der Frage – man sollte niemals bearbeitete JPG Dateien wieder als JPG speichern für den Fall, dass man sie erneut bearbeiten muss/will. Jedes erneute Öffnen mit anschließender Speicherung von JPEGs hat einen Qualitätsverlust zur Folge durch die verlustbehaftete Komprimierung des Formats. Auch bei "100% Qualität". Zu deinem Problem - ich vermute dass Affinity beim Speichern von JPEG Dateien eine oftmals und von vielen Programmen genutzte Qualitätseinstellung zwischen 80% und 90% als Voreinstellung nutzt. Wie sehen die Dateien denn aus, wenn du sie mit höchstmöglicher Qualität exportierst, statt sie direkt zu speichern?

Not clunky, but completely useless in a lot of scenarios as the exported result will be pixels, not vector. Latter is needed i. e. when designing vector stock illustrations (which already can be a PITA with Affinity's apps, if you do some more complex ones) or when creating vector templates for CNC/Laser cutting and engraving. Don't get me wrong, Affinity apps are great and can do a lot of the daily tasks for many. But it's far from being a replacement for some of the other apps like Adobe's (or Corel's which have a great support for CNC/Laser) on the market. I see it more as an alternative for private use and a small sector of professional designing. That's all I wanted to say. And I don't think that Serif is seriously trying to target Adobe's main market. For that, simply too many basics are way too "clunky" as you said or missing completely.

No, it's not. Only for private tasks and maybe for an extremely small sector of professionals. If you do graphics and illustrations for money, you can't work all day with time consuming workarounds in order to get the job done. A bicycle can get you from A to B. But I still wouldn't deem it a solid replacement for a car, if you have to drive for 200km per day for work.