Andy05

Wow, Einstein! You know the meaning of terms like "base" and "example", do you? There are better DeepAIs out there, some even offer the possibilities for changing options and features, but they are not free. Yet, for someone who doesn't know where to start, they might provide a better base to start with than the original source. Not more, not less. As @Lagarto showed correctly, fixing colour casts usually needs more than a simple click or filter. But more importantly, it requires some knowledge and skills about how to do it. I assumed the OP might not have enough of either of these—otherwise he wouldn't have asked for help here. And if you compare the AI driven result with Legarto's excellent base, your statement about "lots of colours being completely wrong" is completely wrong. Keep in mind, it's easier for a beginner to correct wrong colouring i. e. on the hands in the middle of the image, if you have references in the same image you can clone or copy from.

As for discoloured images, I'd use some AI in order to get a base to work with. Saves a lot of time and you could get some quite impressive first results for fine-tune them in Affinity. https://playback.fm/colorize-photo being an example:

Hm. You forgot counting the time for learning Java. Not everyone working with design apps is also capable of programming (in whatever language needed for solving the problem).

I think, there are at least two major reasons, why they (still) call them "vector brushes". Firstly, early versions (prior to 1.7) of Affinity Designer indeed started off with some more vector brushes. You can still find them here. (The 1.6 Basic ones contain some more true vector brushes than the current apps.) So, they started with some more of them, hence the wording was ok up to that point. After the brushes got removed, it would have made a bad impact on the advertising, if they would have dropped the term. Also, it'd be quite strange, selling a vector app without vector brushes, so they can't leave out advertising them (although they don't exist in the product any longer). Latter might be the second reason for why they still claim providing "vector" brushes in their apps (besides, there are still one or two real vector brushes, i. e. under "pens").

No. Their path is vector. Their shape is NOT vector. Not at all. Their shape (what you see as final output) is pixel, not vector. There's no definition of "vector brush", which would cover Serif's approach on the matter.

Agreed. But a term like "Vektorpinsel" (vector brushes") doesn't give much of room for an interpretation. I really think, a competitor might be successful, if accusing Serif for false advertising in order to gain an competitive advantage by advertising features of a product, which don't exist. You can't claim a pixel brush becomes vector just because its (pixel) source and path are editable. And yeah, "Weniger ist mehr" (It's adding by subtracting) sometimes, also in advertising. But I already stated this on occasion in these fora, I don't think Serif's targeting at the majority of professional photoshop users or i. e. designers in print. Their apps are more suited for hobbyists and also for the more artsy sectors of design business. So, all those fluffy expressions might appeal to those sectors more than i. e. to people in prepress production.

Oh, wow! Must have added them (again) after some of the recent releases? I was sure they've removed it in the international/English version a while ago, too, when I looked at them. As they did that in the German version. On the German page it's since then "a solid brush" for (intuitive and natual) drawing... Probably they changed the localised wording here, because we have strict laws in Germany concerning false advertising? EDIT: No, you're right. Further down in the wall of text, they still call them "Flexible Vektorpinsel" (flexible vector brushes).

Exactly. Even Affinity removed the term "vector brushes" on their website. A pixel brush following a (vector) path is not a vector brush. @Ulysses Check the first comment on the video you recommended... »Need to rename this video. Making a brush from a PNG is not vector.«

Hm. Seems to be a limited field you'd need the apps for, if you don't miss vector brushes in a vector app. But anyways, this whole discussion was started initially about pixels, so my examples might not affect you as you probably don't work with vectors. Still weird, if you sell a vector app, which lacks basic vector functions. It's like selling a car without steering wheel. Yes, you could drive it nevertheless, i. e. if you use a pipe wrench for steering.

I agree with this. But the still missing non-destructive warp/envelope function for vector objects and—what really baffles me—NO real customisable vector brushes (sic!) in designer are deal breaking to a lot of (possible) users.

Sure. Please, create and/or edit some dxf files for my laser cutter. Or use some very simple warping on some vectors, how about simply bending some text so it's shaped like a trapezoid or circle? Oh - and please, try using some vector brushes and export those "vectors" as EPS so you can sell your artwork at stock websites... Affinity Designer can be an alternative for a lot of things you could do in CorelDraw. But it still lacks so many basic vector features which are standards in the industry for decades that I might have missed a joke here, if you claim "it [Affinity Designer] is much better than that [CorelDraw]".

You didn't paste the fx, you pasted the style. Hence, your text is no longer 24pt. Hence, I can confirm: the bug persists on Windows if you copy'n'paste the FX (not the style, which is something completely different).

As for your examples, I second that impression.

You can get a licence for little money for some of the previous versions. In particular if you just want to reduce nodes, you wouldn't need any of the latest versions. CorelDraw does this job really well for ages now, since so many versions ago. Actually, this feature seems to be that well implemented so long ago, that there wasn't any need to improve it any further with the latest version(s).

... that some kind of understatement here. I'd call Affinity's approach in this regards as almost unusable for creating proper designs for CNC and/or laser cutting (alongside with the lack of support of the DXF format). Yet again, we have to rely on third party apps and/or workarounds.

That's the point. Affinity's apps are not meant to be a full replacement for Adobe's products. There's only a fraction of adobe's customers which Serif is aiming at. That said, this doesn't excuse the missing of some essential functions (partially established for decades in comparable programs) in their apps at all. Like a free transform tool or vector brushes for a vector program!

Yes, and I'd call those professionals. They are working mainly as doctors for their living, hence as professionals in their job (at least I guess so). But whether a professional is successful with his job, whether he can earn enough for a living or struggles with it, those are completely different issues and have nothing to do with the definition of the term "professional". I can see your point, that designers in third world might not be able to afford the US or European prices for a subscription of Photoshop. But you totally forgot, that Adobe's licences are influenced by local market conditions, too. People in the US and EU pay at least 60% more than in less rich countries. (source i. e. https://community.adobe.com/t5/account-payment-plan/why-creative-cloud-for-europe-is-so-expensive/td-p/4096457?page=1&profile.language=de). So my point is still some kind of valid, even if you get paid less, you also have to spend less for your living in general (cheaper rent, food, licenses...). And if you really need Photoshop (and can't do your job without), the works should pay for its licence. Otherwise you might be an outstanding designer, artist, whatever. Even the best in the world. But if you can't afford buying the tools you need for your job, you are not a professional as per definition.

Hm. Photoshop V.1 probably has as much in common with its recent versions as Affinity Photo with Serif's PhtotoPlus, some kind of predecessor of Affinity Photo. Latter is way older than 5 years. So, comparing Adobe's 30 years of experience to Serif's 5 years with Affinity apps is comparing apples to oranges. Serif had quite some history in DTP (hence, experience) before they started with their Affinity suite. I seriously don't know why a lot of people feel such aversion against either Photoshop or Affinity and feel the urge to convince others about their beloved tool is the one and only. I'm using both, although I'm trying to get more focus on the Affinity apps, because I like the idea of having an alternative to the big fish in design business. Yet, publisher is far from being usable in a professional environment at least in its current state. Designer still lacks basic functions, even true vector brushes are missing (a shame for a vector/design program nowadays, really). Photo also has some shortcomings if you have to deal with some tasks beyond the common photo retouch/manipulation/editing. Yes, I'm aware that a lot of daily design jobs could be done with the Affinity suite, but why can't the "Affinity fanboys and -girls" accept, that the suite isn't a full replacement for Adobe's in its current state and maybe never will be? Also, the other way round: Why is it so hard for "Adobe's cheerleaders" to accept, that it's possible for a lot of (even professional) designers to use Affinity's apps in order to do their job quickly and easily? And this whole debate about "who's bigger" or "who has more experience", neither the payment structure matter at all. If I have a job to do, I use the tool which—to me—works best for finishing it. The tool doesn't make the designer more or less professional actually. Side note: If jobs done don't pay Adobe's subscriptions, one can't be a professional designer. Period. One might be hobbyist, dedicated amateur or probably call himself a professional designer because one sells stuff like "I create your 'professional logo' for 10 Dollar" at fiverr, facebook marketplace or Reddit. I wouldn't deem either of those professionals, sorry. No matter how good the works are which they create. My humble definition of being "professional" is not about the quality alone, but also about the ability to make your living with the job.

Indeed. And this example might be one of the most wanted feature for a lot of designers. No more hiring a good photographer and/or models, no more waiting for either of them in order to get the results you wanted. No more trouble or extra costs due to negotiating about licenses, if you want to prolong or extend the initial purpose of the images and so on and so on...

Nice one! I thought I'd be the only Dinosaur one here with experience on such vintage stuff. As I child, I experienced my dad creating our advertising paper (family business) with handsetting/lead (and I helped every once in a while, sorting the letters). I started my own career later on an AM Varityper. I could rescue one of its phototypesetting discs, CS 2004B (fonts: Bauhaus Lt/Bauhaus Bd/Ultra Bodoni/Ultra Bodoni B.). It's hanging at the wall of my studio. Still. We still used our old "Heidelberger" even late in the 2000s for embossing jobs and creating folds on heavy papers.

Yes, if someone makes statements like "The Affinity Suite is astonishingly good for a 1.8 version". In this case, one tries to make the development dependant on the currently low number not on its age. But Affinity's version numbers do NOT reflect the time an app usually is on the market with a 1.x number.

Erm. That's kinda related to their policy of how they number their versions, probably due to their pricing/upgrade model. As most other developers wouldn't increase their version number by a fraction of 1 over a path of 6 years of development, major changes and improvements of their program. Compare 1.0 vs. 1.8 of the Affinity apps and do the same with most other apps. You'll see that Affinity apps had more changes than most others which version numbers increased by 7 or 8 instead of 0.8. The version number is yet another thing which you can't compare the Affinity apps to others' with.

Though that would only be a valid comparison, if you'd still work with the very first, even better with the beta release of an Affinity app. Because CS3 was released in 2007. Since you said, you'd use Affinity "more and more": the latest version of Affinity apps still can't completely replace 13+ years old programs for your? Or why do you still keep CS3 on one of your systems? Anyways, I agree with @Raymondo. In almost all sectors of the creative business, there are deadlines. Most of the time very tight ones, too. "Time is money" as they say—and this couldn't me more true in this case. Yes, you can do a lot of things and daily works with Affinity's apps in almost the same time as with other products. But there are still a plethora of things which take multiple times longer to finish on Affinity apps with all its missing established basics and standards in UI/UX and in the design industry. Just search for "workarounds" in these fora and you might see the whole picture. And as said, "Time is money."—at least in a professional environment. I agree with you, Chris, because I also think, most have the wrong idea about Affinity's apps. I personally still don't see Affinity's apps as direct competitors to Adobe's. Affinity's market isn't the same, it's just covering a fraction of Adobe's market. Affinity's apps are great for private use, for small businesses and freelance work, which isn't too time-sensitive. As soon as you have to work in a bigger professional design workflow, you can't bypass Adobe. And I highly doubt that this will change within the next years, if ever. Affinity apps have their market, their price makes it possible. They are not meant to me a 100% replacement for Adobe's Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign.

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.