Nita Reed

You are welcome!
kirk

Wow...that was AWESOME!  What a great solution...
THANK YOU!

It's very much possible to have an Android version. The excuses about "economic viability" and "fragmentation" are about half a decade outdated. If several small developers can do it, there's no excuse for Serif to not do it other than the lack of will. You don't "have to develop for a thousand different devices" as many here seem to imagine.. that's not how software development works. If that was the case, Android wouldn't have more than 10 apps. You target a specific API level, a specific device performance level and that's about it. Any well-made app will work on almost every mid to high end Android device running Android 9-12 just fine.

It depends on how you place it (and whether you place an "image" image or a "pixel" image).
Here the source from a 300dpi document is saved on disk as a PNG image, resulting in 2016 x 1962px size bitmap.
Then this file is placed in a 72dpi and 300dpi Affinity Photo A4-size documents, showing that the pixel dimension is retained (the image just looks much bigger in the low resolution 72dpi document).
Additionally, the same image is also copied via Clipboard from the source document (where it is 300dpi and has 2016 x 1962px when rasterized to a pixel layer) to the destination documents, and here it can be seen that Affinity apps resize (by design) the image placed on the Clipboard according to the DPI of the destination document. So when pasting the same image to a 300dpi document, the pixel dimension is retained, but when to a 72dpi image, this results in reduced size of 484 x 471px.


When copy pasting via Clipboard across Affinity apps, whether the resizing happens depends on whether an image or pixel layer is copied. If a rasterized layer is converted in Publisher to an image object, the source DPI is retained in image meta data, and the original pixel dimensions would be retained, even when pasting to a document with different document DPI. In this case this would result in having the same size of image pasted in a 72dpi document as the image file placed by using File > Place.
UPDATE: I might have unnecessarily complicated the problem by showing behavior that might not be part of your specific problem, but since you appear to have experienced at least apparent reduction of resolution (understood as loss of details in the image), what I described above might be relevant. But I forgot the situation where the destination document has pixels as document unit (like you have in your screenshots): then placed and pasted raster images should directly be rendered using their pixel dimensions and complexities related to conflicts between document resolutions (DPI) have no effect. But as document unit can be changed simply by changing ruler units, this may easily happen inadvertently, and change of unit from pixel based to physical dimension based (like inches or millimeters), or vice versa, will change the way image data (including vector objects) will be exchanged and dimensioned when pasting between different apps (including Affinity apps themselves).
 
 

Hi @Nita Reed,
There are a few things at play here -
Your image is placed at '18%' of it's full resolution, which can be seen on the context toolbar -



This means the image is actually (roughly) 540 x 450px on your canvas, which is why the quality looks significantly reduced compared to the full size image.
  When copying this image and using File > New From Clipboard, it will be pasted using the above scaling, hence the size of the document created in your screenshot.
  File > New From Clipboard in Affinity always uses 72 DPI (this is logged with our developers as an Improvement), so not only will the lower physical resolution be used in the new document, it may also have a lower DPI. I hope this clears things up  

It is red on dark grey. Bad contrast. A perfect example for a highlighting that doesn't work.

For criminy sake LOL!

You might want to read the error message again
 

Ron.P queried where it was from, I just pointed out the file name displayed in the screenshot tells where it was from, a simple thing to miss.
I think Callum is just trying to brainstorm and think of alternative avenues to see if they give a different result. So opening a file and working around the open file instead of creating a blank document and placing a file. I suppose the premise is if you are merely editing a file and there is to be no other work done, opening a file seems more logical than placing, but we don't know what you are doing with the file so it's just assumptions and blue sky thinking to find you a solution.
Affinity do offer an honour based dropbox link for commercial work, work that people would rather not upload to a public forum and paid for content. after looking at the potential issue they will delete said work or file hence the honour.

paid

I meant...maybe photoshop users are so used to photoshop processes that they have trouble when things don't work the same.

I would love to see this!
 

I would love to see this!
 

They just can't sit at a table and agree to one format can they, they HAVE to complicate things and make there own strawberry jam.

In Publisher 1.8.1, under the File menu, is "Export as template."
 

Search the forums for 
publisher AND templates
and you'll find a lot of opinions about templates that began a year ago during AFPub's beta testing. Some want templates. Others say professional publishing applications should not  have templates at all. Does a program become more professional by leaving out useful features that would appeal to a broader range of end-users? Why would a software developer limit its market when simple additions to the product would broaden the market?
I am a rank amateur who thinks templates are important, as in Microsoft Publisher that I have used on and off for the past couple of decades. Whether Serif will supply templates, or encourage others to produce them, depends on how much Serif wants to restrict the market for AFPub. The reasons for not including templates are not clear to me. It seems basic templates could be created in minutes by experienced professionals and the rest of us would not have to stumble around figure everything out from scratch. As something of a computer and publishing geek myself I might find that fun. Most people I know who could benefit from a desktop publishing application will look elsewhere.

I absolutely agree. We Book designers waste a lot of time adjusting parameters - and that happens almost every time ;-(. We would also need a slug to be able to add extra information on the edge. But IF... if there would be an easier way to adjust spine and flaps ... yeppp, that would be a blessing!

Save as plain text? Or, copy to Mail or other app than can make text plain.
Problem with plain text is that very often there are encoding problems and you also lose all local formatting (also the needed one), which is time consuming to add to text in layout if there is a lot of it.

My mistake: I should have checked before posting! I must have been thinking of Serif’s ‘legacy’ applications (PagePlus, DrawPlus, etc).

THANK YOU!

You can change the unit type easily in the top left corner of the rulers, just right click and select your units of choice.

My apologies. Accidentally mixed you up with another person who wrote that stuff.

No one outside of Serif knows.
No one inside Serif will say.
 

We’re singing from the same hymn sheet, Nita! What you’ve described is exactly why I said it’s rental, not ownership, when you go down the subscription route.

The only problem might be that the (probably most interesting part of this pack, if one wants to be creative) vector brushes won't work.