Andy05

Contradicting yourself much, now? Because, if you do like stated in your last comment, your previous one was nothing but an obsolete, trolling rant: ("...] I couldn't provide that, nor could I provide any explanation for why [...]"). Anyway, a true "professional" would probably post in a more consistent manner...

As much as I agree with the topic of this thread, your comment is kind of weird, if you're really working on a professional base. A professional would just use a different tool, if the currently used ones can't provide the features one needs. As you stated in your comment, there are even free alternatives. So, again, I wholeheartedly agree that a vector warp feature is sorely missing in Affinity Designer—but, as a professional—you'd better come up with an alternative solution for basic tasks for your clients rather than trying to explain that you're using tools, which won't let you fulfil your clients' requests. A real professional usually has more tools in his bag, especially if some of them don't provide all features one needs.

Depending on what kind of colour is used, it might be even a bit shiny/glossy looking. But I wouldn't work with any 3D effects either. And yes, the skin texture needs to be visible in order to make the result look real. Here are two real-life examples, which might give an idea of how the edit should look like. Covering a huge area to demonstrate the texture effect: Here's a bit more glossy colour: As you can see, the second example is completely opaque, yet the skin texture remains clearly visible.

PSD's mesh warp—which is typically being used for 3D-ish mockups—is one of the Photoshop features, which Affinity's apps cannot interpret or render.

Shutterstock usually rejects EPS files, which can't fulfil their specifications, when you submit them. Unfortunately, it can be tricky at times to find out which of the specification hasn't been met. For vectors, it's usually added FX or some rasterized objects. Shutterstock won't accept some EPS even if they are 100% compatible with Adobe Illustrator V. 8/9.

I'm not sure if I misunderstood something here, but if you know the original dimensions/aspect ratio, why not creating a canvas in that size/ratio and then pulling the corners of the perspective destination to its corners? I'm completely with @Old Bruce's suggestion in this matter. Create a new canvas in the correct aspect ratio/dimensions Paste/place image onto canvas Resize (if needed and/or wanted) Open Perspective filter (either live or not, doesn't matter) Chose mode "Source" and move the four corner nodes to the four corners of the distorted source picture in your photo Chose mode "Destination" and pull the four corner nodes to the edges/corners of your canvas Apply filter Done. The result will be a perspective distortion applied to your image to recover the original aspect ratio, basically "undoing" the perspective distortion you've created when taking the photo.

Nur am Rande: Falls die Moderationskarten auf Karton gedruckt werden sollen (>120/160g per m²), solltest du auf den automatischen Einzug verzichten und die lieber über den Einzelblatteinzug zuführen. Dickere Papiere/Kartons sollten nie über die normale Papierkartusche gedruckt werden, dafür ist die erste Einzugswalze in einem viel zu kleinen Radius. Das gibt nur Probleme (wenn der Drucker den Karton überhaupt zu fassen und um die erste Walze "gedrückt" bekommt. Da sind schiefe/fehlerhafte Einzüge und Papierstaus vorausbestimmt... Zu deinem Treiber, das scheint der von Microsoft automatisch installierte Treiber zu sein. Versuch' für dein Druckermodell einen Treiber direkt bei Brother herunterzuladen. Der hat deutlich mehr Einstellungsmöglichkeiten. Zumindest ist das der Fall für meine beiden Brother Drucker (DCP-J4120DW und HL-L2350DW). Dort kann ich ohne Probleme auch eigene Papierformate (die Option nennt sich dann "Benutzerdefiniert") angeben.

I'd use a combination of clone stamp tool in order to extend the wall and the metal framework towards the bottom. Some adjustment layers (contrast, colour, brightness etc.) as well as some inpainting retouches could help with fine-tuning the cloned areas.

Both are flat formats; neither JPG nor PNG support layers. Therefore, the font is "baked" into the background. You'd need to work with Affinity Photo's inpainting and/or cloning tools in order to remove and replace it.

You can create object A with a stroke on it, then use -> layer -> expand stroke. This will convert the stroke into the object B (not a stroke anymore).

Check, if hardware acceleration in enabled in your settings. Disabling this setting might help with the issues.

That's something, which only the creator of the PDF files can do as this format isn't meant to be edited by nature, it's a closed format. It's not Affinity Designer's fault per se. "But it works in Adobe's apps" might be true, but that's only because they are leader in the industry and don't care for official standards. They do what they want with their own formats like EPS, PDF, "extending" them with additional streams, which often only Adobe apps can handle as they—of course—don't publish how to handle them in order to make users having to stay with Adobe. You can't blame other software developers for this behaviour. I haven't tested this, but what happens when you place the PDF (passthrough) and then export the layout with the embedded PDF as a (new) PDF, with "convert text to curves" activated? Or, if that doesn't work, place the PDF (passthrough) onto a blank document, export this in a raster format like @Joachim_L suggested. Latter should create a placeable image for your layouts.

If it can be pixels: Just create some lines of different length and apply a motion blur in the lines' direction in oder to make them stretch and fade at each side. Copy the result as often as needed, rotate it and create a (seamless) pattern with it—and you're ready to go.

Usually even budget cutter/plotters include some kind of software for using them. Even if it's very uncomfortable to use or to design with. But such software typically can deal with at least one vector format or another (PDF/EPS/SVG). So designing a motive in the preferred app, like Affinity Designe, and exporting it so the manufacturer's native software can be used for plotting/cutting is a standard workflow.

I second this! Also, it will reduce the process of back-and-forth discussion about the layout, if the client can do the proofreading with text "in its final shape".

That's actually a good example, for what AI can't do very well (in a professional workflow). The more complex and complicated the selection is, the more AI fails in this task. There are countless of examples at YouTube, which prove even dedicated (and expensive) masking tools not even close as good as manual masking.

I'm not sure if I'd like to see (m)any of them in the Affinity apps to be honest. Developing AI driven technologies costs a lot of manpower. I'd rather see that being used for some of the basic functions, which Affinity lacks—even after several years of users complaining about it. As for AI features, there are dedicated tools for that. Sometimes it's better to use multiple apps within one's workflow rather than praying for an all-in-one solution.

Topaz DeNoise always worked for me without any issues at all. Also the current version (V. 3.4.2) works perfectly fine with my Affintiy Photo—also current version—as plugin. Windows 10 system here, too. For me, the only Topaz app, which doesn't work as plugin in Affinity, is Topaz GigaPixel.

And that's unfortunately the reason, why none of the suggested workarounds would allow to create such vector cliparts which would get accepted by the major stock pages, because all will produce some kind of rasterization.

I'd just like to clarify, that I didn't want to judge with my comment(s). Heck, I'm in design/advertising business for more than 35 years now, I'm "one of those" myself, who used some of the methods which you googled in my career more than once. 😄

Wow, you're lazy! You could have cleaned the side of the BBQ, too! 😀

That's called advertising/marketing, I suppose. Exaggerating and providing perfect results—even if they are fake—suchlike is common practice (unfortunately). But usually it's done it the other way round (put some easy-to-clean) dirt onto a perfectly new object and "clean it with ease" with their fancy product. That's what's a bit odd to me with this task.

There's no simple "one click" solution, restoring this grill will require a lot of masking, stamping with the clone tool, painting in colours (and adding texture, shadows and highlights again afterwards for a realistic look) and suchlike. It's doable, yet requires some effort (and time).

True. But depending on how much German text is needed for the design/layout, it still might be the best option.

Hm. That's not a good idea for a seamless workflow. There's a lot of "ss" to be found in German words. Far more than "ß".