F+C

Open and Save UI elements should not be tied to the main document frame. Many professional users have multiple monitors and it's very awkward to use. Not everyone is on laptops. Thank

I remember back in the early days of the Mac, I thought it was weird that every new version of PageMaker required that old documents be "converted" and how the UI was "just a bit odd" from release to release. (The company I was working at was a Quark user due to it's superior kerning abilities). I read an interview with someone who was part of the PageMaker team at Aldus, he said it drove them crazy. Everytime they tried to add a simple feature (I remember something about adding a new measurement option or something like that) the whole thing would break. So every new version of PageMaker was almost a re-write of the program (a problem with first to market products). I think it really held them back. Perhaps this is the case here? This seems to be a feature that would be easy to implement, but I didn't write the code. I do wish they'd bring on an experienced print production person on their team. They would understand why these little things are so important to people trying to use their products in a professional setting.

That line is the bottom of the selection. Selected Stretched the section up 10px. Dd the same thing in PS - no line

it's really as simple as that Open an image Select part of the image Scale the part that you just selected. Looks like you have to "Rasterize" first. although now it leaves a white line on the edge of the selection for no apparent reason. This is a 30 sec operation in PS

In PS, you select a part of an image and you can just scale it or do whatever. No other steps are involved. Can't seem to figure out how to do such a straight forward operation

very true. In fact, most professional design work is pretty boring. After the conceptualization it's really about execution, and that's the difference between pro's and normals. A pro is more interested in speed of layout, stability. It's more about getting 15 ad's out by 5, or that 75 page AR that the client has been slow at getting the source material to you so you're 2 weeks behind and it needs to get to proofing next morning and it's 3pm. You don't get a chance to do all the wacky things that the programs allow you to do in real-life.

Agreed. I think Affinity needs to work with an experienced production consultant. Someone who has spent many years in the print industry and agencies actually producing printed material in the real world. There are really good reasons why Adobe stuff does what it does (although they've added a ton of other features) - it's not just a feature. They could hire me, I started with Quark 2.11 . . . and paste-up!

In production it would be great to have a "replace selected item", instead of just a "place command". Select the logo on the business card go to File->Place Click box in dialog "replace selected item" Select the file that the client should have initially sent you click "ok" The new graphic is in the same place with the same scaling, effects, etc Very useful when having to replace logos or graphics in documents

(everything updated) Create a new document open the stock panel put in search word Select thumb in the sidebar Drag to document Cursor drags thumbnail to page with green "+" sign Release mouse button Image is not added to page

yes - please add sub-folders. Kinda useless otherwise (in production enviroments)

Came here to find out how to do that -

It's so weird. I wonder if this is a much more complicated feature to add than we think. The Guides manager has a lot of options so it's a very odd omission. I wish companies would monitor these forms and reply. Imagine if they said "hey there, we tried to add this feature but it's gonna take much more work than we thought. I don't think we could get it implemented and tested for the next release or so". We all would think "drag, but ok". Silence is never a good reply to ones customers. It's ok to say no, just don't make it seem like you ignore your customers.

Well it can be tricky - I remember thinking how odd it was back in the day and just started with this stuff that PageMaker's doc formats would change from version to version. They got "converted" when you opened it with the new version of the program. At a User Group meeting I had the chance to meet someone from Aldus and he told me that the way they started the code made it so whenever they added a feature it would often break the whole thing - so they'd need to almost re-write it to get around their limitations. Programming can be hard and it's hard to know what to focus on (which is why a clear vision from the start is so important) AND, this is a $79 program. I think we should keep that in mind.

It's super weird and always behind the tool bar. Could you make it float on top and just be a normal save box? Thanks

It's super weird and it's always behind the toolbar. Just let it float on top of the window and be repositionable like a normal app save window? Thanks

yeah - totally I think they'd have to get some "older production folks" to consult on their application to get it to be a real pro level application.

Sigh - so true. Affinity Publisher is like that friend who is a really good person, who you'd like to hang out with more but keeps on doing dumb things. BUT it's also so much cheaper than the other program so I guess you get what you pay for. I've given up trying to use it for production tasks and stick with CS. Perhaps in v2 these issues will be fixed but I fear as the team is apparently made up of non-production industry types this will continue to be a consumer level product (which isn't bad - it's just not a pro-level application)

It does seem odd - I can't imagine that it's that hard a feature to add. Affinity is very frustrating - I really want to love their stuff but it always just falls short of truly professional applications. I think the big issue is their programmers have never really worked in a production industry role - the kind of "crap, I have to get 10 ads out by 5pm and sent to San Francisco" kinda world. they probably look at our requests and think "why the hell would you want that?". Us old industry folks know why we need them. I think they're going for the pro sumer market, which is a shame but perhaps a bigger market than trying to appeal to Advertising, Marketing agencies and printers. I think someone will go after the same market as Adobe CS, but probably won't be $70!

I take it you haven't been in the industry very long. You'll learn kid, you'll learn....

Hi. I tried the collect solution via Resource Manger and it's not the same. Look, lets' all be honest. We all need the same functionality that the "Package" has in InDesign. No "do this and then it asks you for that" type of thing. Just the same thing. We don't want Affinity to try and re-invent the wheel. The reason is that is the way professionals need their files handled. Full stop. You may think it's overkill or not a big deal, but if you're dealing with many staff (and some freelancers who have differing amounts of experience), you need a proven system that will work -- even after a year or more where the original machine might have been reformatted or changed. I'm not sure if it's legal concerns preventing this seemingly straight-forward feature but perhaps they don't want to raise the anger of Adobe, but that's what the pro market needs.

Hi Packaging is critical feature for Publisher to be used in professional production environments. Back in the day, before Quark had this feature, there were many utilities that would do this and they sold well as it's really important when you're in a company that creates 100's of projects a year. I guess this depends on how Affinity wants to position their products. They may want to leave the pro users to Adobe (and Quark - they're still kicken!) which is fine, but if they want to go for the pro market there are a still couple of things they need to add not be the just little brother to the pros that gets used by hobbiests (although a great solution for that). At this point in time, Affinity stuff is "ever so close, but not quite there" for pro use (I've now done 5 projects using all the products so I have some idea of what I speak). Keep it up Affinity Folks! - great stuff over all just not for agency use at this time.

Yeah - unless you've worked in a production environment where you're dealing with a ton of documents from different designers with tight deadlines, it probably doesn't seem that important. It is these small things that separate the truly professional grade applications from consumer or prosumer grade solutions. But if Affinity is going for the Prosumer market than it's a different decision. We are comparing it to a solution that is much older and much, much more expensive after all.

Hi +1 on this too.

(Copied from an older post) A huge part is that for pre-press / manufacturing things need to be exact, so not doing things by eye. We often need to step and repeat object = 3.5"x2" Repeat horizontally: 20 x @ 3.5" Repeat Vertically: 20 x @ 2" An even small discrepancy can be quite off at the end causing the need for a reprint and lots of lost money. It would be great (and much MUCH faster) if you could just select "Step and repeat", plug in the numbers and go. Doing that 20 times a day, small efficiencies can add up. Especially as computers are so much better at that type of thing as humans and we didn't loose a war so computers should do the stuff they are good at