[Print is poor quality - very faint]

Hey Sianblight, could you share the file you use to print? Are you printing from a PDF document or directly from Affinity Designer?

Could be a an issue with opacity and transparency of layers. Perhaps the blending mode of layers. Are they all set to normal in the layers panel?

What type of file format is used to print the images?

 

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

22 minutes ago, Fixx said:

Here in cold and desolate northern Europe

Fixx, would that mean we should use the CMYK profile that is commonly used in a specific area, like Europe or the US?

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

2 minutes ago, BofG said:

Affinity defaults to SWOP coated which is very limited.

Just a question. Does that mean that using the default SWOP, CMYK profile would be a pretty safe profile to use in regards to a printing shop requirement?

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

3 minutes ago, Fixx said:

Common sense says use profiles your customer is going to use.

I agree with that, Fixx.

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

7 minutes ago, Chris26 said:

Exactly which of the myriad of cmyk profiles should one adopt when setting up one's document?  

Upvote. Someone got an idea? The CMYK profiles are not few, as you all know.

My assumption is that when choosing which profile to use, when sending a file to a large print shop, consulting with the print shop on what profile would be most suitable for them would be the best. Perhaps one profile would produce a better result in the US, while a different profile for print shops in Europe. I think the standards are different.

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

45 minutes ago, Lorox said:

As the CMYK colour space is considerably smaller than the common RGB colour spaces, the logo begun in CMYK should be easily reproduceable on screen once it has been converted to RGB as there are almost no colours in CMYK that cannot be closely reproduced in RGB. Given that the vast majority of displays in use will not even be able to truly display any RGB colour space bigger than sRGB it seems reasonable or sufficient to me to produce an RGB-version of the initial CMYK-logo using just that sRGB colour space.

I truly agree with your opinion @Lorox. When we aim at consistency of the design while taking into consideration both print and digital screen mediums, I believe starting with CMYK would be the safest bet.

As you said, the exception being if the logo would initially be used only digitally, and then at a later point needs a printable version. The color shift will be greater here.

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

1 hour ago, BofG said:

I'd go sRGB and put a soft proof on from the get go.

The thing is that CMYK on a screen looks worse than it does on real paper output. You don't get the same reflectance, diffusion etc. so it always looks "flatter" on screen. If you opt for a CMYK document, then you straight away compromise whatever you produce for use on screen, if you go for RGB then at least you are fully in control of the compromises that are made between screen and print.

Thank you @BofG, I totally agree with the extra versatility when starting from sRGB, as long as one manages to keep the colors consistent when converting to smaller gamut color spaces later on - CMYK.

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

55 minutes ago, Chris26 said:

But my instincts tell me to start all designing in sRGB

The first that came to my mind was also to start off in sRGB and then convert to CMYK if needed for print, and make the necessary adjusments so the colors look almost the same after the conversion. But most articles I've read regarding this question say that it's wiser to start off with CMYK because the conversion to RGB later on won't have that big color shift (difference), and you may not even need to adjust anything after converting. I believe this sounds pretty logical. 

It's interesting to hear that you're trying out something new @Chris26. I've been into the creation of logos for while and that's what got me concerned about color management in the first place.
And hey! If you would need any help with your logo I'd be glad to help you out. That would be lots of fun. You can send me a direct message by clicking here.

Anyways, thanks for the opinion!

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

Morning! I see that @Slammer and @Chris26 both have some pretty interesting opinions. Thanks for all the input, despite that it went a little off the road, but I also like to get in to details when it comes to color management.

What would you think: Is it better to start off designing a vector drawing in sRGB, then convert the final work to CMYK for a printable version. Or start off in CMYK and then convert to RGB?

Let's say the above example is related to a logo design in vector, aimed to be used for both a website (RGB for screens) and offset printing (CMYK). What would you do?

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

Yes @Lorox, I do agree with all that you said. In fact, color management for printing of logos was my main concern on this topic.

When I design a logo for an individual it usually goes only with an RGB color space format. But when a client is seeking to print the logo I need to prepare a CMYK version as well, of all the files. Sometimes also a spot color, PANTONE version.

Since RGB has a broader color gamut than CMYK, isn't it wiser to begin the design in RGB and then convert to CMYK?

Some people suggest the opposite, to start off with CMYK and then convert to what is needed. That way you're always sure the colors you choose will be suitable for printing.

But isn't it a strange to start off with a smaller color gamut? To get those nicely saturated colors in RGB later on would require a lot of changes to colors if one begins with CMYK.

Anyways, this is more than out of point for this topic. Thanks to everyone for the answers and I think all my questions are solved. 🙂

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

1 hour ago, Chris26 said:

Let's make this less complicated.  CONVERT: Maintains the exact colours that you have in your image but gives them new numbers based upon the colour profile of the target output. ASSIGN:  You preserve the colour numbers, but the new profile you have assigned will change the colours drastically.

Hey Chris, thanks a lot for simplifying my unclarity, I appreciate it. After seeing your answer and reading through the whole article you attached, I truly understood the whole thing so much easier. Everything is clear for me now.

If someone reading this topic has the same question as I had, I advise you to read the article attached in the answer given by Chris26. It is very well written.

Thank you everyone for your answers!

- Dimitar

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

2 hours ago, Lorox said:

When going from one CMYK profile (say Fogra27) to another (say ISOcoated_v2) you sort of can decide whether the colours already there in the document should maintain their given CYMK values ( > Assign) or if the colour's appearance should be encoded according to the values the new target CMYK profile considers appropriate ( > Convert).

Hi Lorox, thank you for the explanation. I did see the "assign" and "convert" buttons were grayed out when switching from RGB to CMYK (color spaces), only after I posted the question. In this case it is always a conversion.

So the main difference is essentially when changing from one color profile to another, as you said? Why would I choose assign instead of convert? Let's take this for example.

I'm working on a logo in Affinity Designer using the RGB color space and the sRGB color profile. For some reason, I'd like to change the color profile to Adobe RGB, because it covers a wider color gamut. In this case, assigning or converting the color values wouldn't make any bad impact on the design, I assume, since the Adobe RGB profile already covers the sRGB color profile.

Now. If I was working in Adobe RGB in the first place, and then later on wished to change to sRGB, I'll have to options: Either choose "convert" so that the color values used in the document change in order to fit inside the color gamut that is covered by sRGB. Or, only "assign" the new color profile from Adobe RGB to sRGB without having a change to the color values. This case is unrealistic though, as I understand it, because the colors that were from Adobe RGB and outside the new sRGB color profile aren't being covered in sRGB, despite the fact that I "assigned" the color space, or rather embedded it in the document.

This perhaps could lead to problems I assume? Since the colors that were originally used in the first Adobe RGB color profile aren't covered in the newly "assigned" sRGB profile.

Am I right on this or did I misunderstand something? Perhaps the assign feature is used in a different case or situation?

Thank you for reading!

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

29 minutes ago, Fixx said:

If you try to move from RGB to CMYK you will notice the Assign/Convert choice is greyed out. Moving from one colour space to another is always converting.

Changing colour profile can be done either as Convert or Assign. If colour management is working right you will want to use Convert. Assign is for unmanaged files (no profile assigned), or if you know image has wrong profile attached.

Thank you Fixx for the great explanation, that is exactly what I was looking for. You answered my question perfectly. Please have a nice day ahead and keep solving problems like mine. Helps a lot!

[What's the difference between choosing "Assign" or "Convert" when changing color space from RGB to CMYK?]

Hi there everybody, thanks for tuning in.

I've been working with a document created using a template for the web, whcih automatically assigns a sRGB color profile. Now, just for example, if I want to switch the color mode from sRGB to CMYK I see I have two options: one called "Assign" and the other, which is default by the way, called "Convert". I do understand the different gamuts between RGB and CMYK and that converting from the first to the last may produce dull shades to the colors. What I do NOT understand is what the difference is between ASSIGN and CONVERT in the Document Setup Menu under Color. One thing I've noticed is that Converting the colors do make a change to the color sliders, whereas assigning the color mode doesn't. Can someone explain how theese two features work in detail and preferably in a context for printing? Thank you so much for your help in advance!

Dimitar Z.

[Convert stroke to field path]

2 hours ago, MEB said:

Hi LogosByDim,
You can use it to try different colours but it doesn't change the original fill or stroke of the object it's just an overlay. Same thing if you use a Recolour Adjustment which can also be used for the same purpose (it also doesn't change the fill or stoke of the object). Regarding export, both the Layers effects and the Recolour Adjustment will force the rasterisation of the object so it will not be exported as vectors.

If you really need the logo as a single vector object, duplicate the logo layers, and use the boolean operations (add, subtract etc) to create a single shape from all logo elements. If some of them have a stroke you can use the command Layer > Expand Stroke to turn the stroke into a shape then add it to the rest of the elements until you end up with a single shape. You can then duplicate it to try different/compare colours using the Fill colour of the shape which will be exported as a vector object.

Hi MEB, thank you for a thorough response. Expanding the strokes is exactly what I tried to do for all elements in the design except 2 strokes. In the badge I designed, these are the outlines which I created using a vector brush stroke. Since there is no way to convert them to vector objects, I grouped them and colored them in using stroke color. Then I colored the rest of the design with a fill color. That's the closest I could get, dividing the design in two parts. Thanks a lot for helping out!

[Convert stroke to field path]

52 minutes ago, JulieBeth said:

Will these plans include true vector brush capability (no raster) for textured brushes?  I just purchased a bunch of vector brushes, but until I started reading the forums here, I had no idea the vector brushs were not truly vector.    Are there any workarounds?

Hi JulieBeth, as far as I can see, the vector brushes are indeed high quality raster images that look like vectors. I think the files of the brushes themselves are rasters, (I'm not sure). Perhaps the engine works only with rasters as of for now.

If you still don't like the outcome, and made the purchase within 14 days, you may be able to request a refund based on the case you just mentioned.

It is indeed a little unfair to promote the brushes as "used with vector brush tool" when they aren't true vectors. 

But the brushes allow you to create effects that you might otherwise have to make manually. Which is extremely time consuming.

[Convert stroke to field path]

4 minutes ago, MEB said:

Hi LogosByDim,
Try to group all objects and apply a Colour Overlay FX to the group. Does it work for you in that case?

Hi MEB, 
Fairly new to Designer to be honest and had never uset the effects. I found the option and applied it over the logo and it worked. The whole design changed color. Thank you the great solution. Should this be used as a temporary way to try out different colors? Because I'm not sure if any fill or stroke color is changed, just an overlay is applied? Does that overlay function the same way as a normal fill and stroke color when exporting the design?

Thanks!

[Convert stroke to field path]

33 minutes ago, MEB said:

Hi LogosByDim,
Welcome to Affinity Forums
The current brushes in Affinity Designer (Designer Persona) are indeed based on raster textures repeated or stretched along a path. Raster based brushes have the advantage of reproducing organic and other textures in a way pure vector brushes can't due their cleanness/rigid nature. There's plans to expand/improve the vector brush engine in Designer to include also include pure vector based brushes. Currently the brush raster engine (you can find in Pixel Persona and Affinity Photo) is much more developed than its vector counterpart. Thanks for your feedback/support.

Thanks MEB for clarifying that, it's good to know. I understand about the texture being more natural and organic, and that's an advantage. 

I recently finished a logo I made and wanted to be able to change the color of the whole Design with a singel fill color. This was not possible, since the vector brush stroke couldn't be expanded. I had to manually select all the brushes, choose stroke color, change it, and then select the rest of the design and choose fill, and change it. My goal was to have only a fill color on the whole design. 

In some elements with stroke, I expanded it easily, and unified the stroke and the fill to make it one shape I could color entirely with one fill color. That was my aim with the brushes as well. Is there another way to do so in Designer? Regarding the brushes?

[Convert stroke to field path]

3 minutes ago, firstdefence said:

Yours and many others, myself included, it baffles me that we cannot create vector brushes from elements selected while in affinity and have to export to import a texture that is raster, it’s like having dry water. 🤔

Alfred: don’t you dare mention dry ice 😏

Something that tires me the most, is that the vector brushes cannot be expanded to a curve with nodes, a true vector shape. It's just a raster image, instead of a "vector brush". 

[Convert stroke to field path]

For affinity 1.9 I suggest to make an improvement in the sustainability of the vector brush function. The brushes should at least be in true vector format, so that we can work with 100% vectors before we decide to rasterize an object for a reason. After all, wr are talking about significant drawback when it comes to quality and versatility of these brushes. That's my opinion at least.

[Convert stroke to field path]

3 minutes ago, Alfred said:

I suggested that to the OP more than two years ago, but I don’t think we should assume that @LogosByDim is necessarily referring to simple rings.

Alfred is right

[Convert stroke to field path]

Well, I was designing something with a stroke that I made to a vector brush. In fact, that's not even a vector brush. It's a high quality raster image put on path, from what I can tell. And Designer isn't supporting to expand such a stroke. Need improvement here.

[Convert stroke to field path]

The expand strok function is working so bad for me, I have no idea whats going on. 

Inkscape has a much better "stroke to path" function.