wonderings
-
Posts
1,221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by wonderings
-
-
You need to know the stock weight you are using. We generally use 60lb and 70lb for perfect bound books. When your book is completely formatted so you have the exact number of pages your printer should be able to tell you how thick it will be. I do it the old fashion way and just count out however many sheets it will use and measure it with a ruler.
-
On 9/6/2021 at 2:38 PM, Old Bruce said:
Hi and welcome to the forums ,
I doubt it. This is because all three applications have trouble dealing with the current flavours of Clouds as well as some local networks.
Also Adobe you are paying monthly with recurring revenue, Affinity is a one time purchase, how long should they offer cloud services for free after purchase before jumping to a subscription plan?
-
The basic colours for print are CMYK. I would take the few basic colours over an endless list that is given by default. Again this is not an issue with the software as it all works, just not a great basic setup in my opinion. It is all subjective. I do think a simplified basic swatch list is far simpler and easier to start with then every hue imaginable. You can build that as you go if you really need that for every single job you setup.
-
On 9/3/2021 at 2:15 PM, Sotalo said:
Once again if you pay once for the Affinity suite you get free updates for 2 years. The program notifies you when an update is available, it downloads and installs very quickly. Not a problem. No issues. Same thing as CC's updates. What you're doing right now is trying to justify $636 a year for an inferior desktop publishing experience. Designer and Photo worked flawlessly while the new update a couple years back broke Illustrator, and the latest PS update practically broke our workflow. I've printed RAW photos in Adobe RGB on a Canon Image Prograf straight from Photo without export, so good luck trying to justify Adobe's worth in a world that would be, for the most part, better off without them. Call me old-fashioned, but I like to own my software, and my car, and my house, not rent it.
I would hope you get updates for the version you bought. If they stopped giving me free updates for V1 after 2 years when no new V2 has been released I would say that is pretty low for software development.
I don't need to justify $636 a year for the global standard in desktop publishing and a hardly inferior software package. The money made for a years software is easily covered in a days work.
If a PS update broke your workflow you really need to do better testing before updating new software. Thankfully with Adobe CC you can install previous versions very simply with a few mouse clicks.
Great that you can print RAW photos straight from Photo, we stopped worrying about print drivers years ago and rely on RIP's to run our wide form, digital and anything else we print from. Now all our wide form is 44", 54" and 64", maybe it is normal for the smaller desktop to run it direct through a printer drive, just seems very old fashion to me to still be going about it this way.
Again you complete devalue a standard. If you are working by yourself then great that you have found a cheap solution that works for you. Most are not operating this way and knowing what I have is what is used by virtually everyone else on the planet in the same industry simplifies life.
You technically do not own any of your software, you have a licensee agreement that you need to follow. You cannot rip your software apart, play with code, add to it however you want. You are locked down, though I do get your point. You are paying less by "renting" software from Adobe then you would be if you bought it flat out every 2 years. If you are not making enough for this to be financially viable then I would suggest either looking at your business model or you are in the hobbyist category.
-
2 minutes ago, fde101 said:
You are looking at two different things.
The "Colors" palette in the Affinity products is an application-level palette with a long list of pre-defined non-global colors, while the "Swatches" panel in InDesign is showing you colors which are defined in the document, thus being the equivalent of a document palette in the Affinity products.
In Publisher, click the hamburger menu in the upper-right corner of the Swatches panel and choose Add Document Palette. This will create an empty swatches palette that you can then customize with the colors you need for that document.
I am well aware I can make a custom pallet, this is not the issue. The default swatch should be basic the basic colours and simplified without the need for users to create their own. This is not a make or break thing of course as it is customizable, just an annoying UI that I do not think is all that functional. Could just be me of course. The other thing that is severely missing is for spots and pantones inside of placed files to show in the swatch panel as it does in Indesign. Now this is a very functional feature. If you were to look back at my original screen shot comparing Publisher to Indesign. If I were to drop a PDF with Pantone 032 in my Indesign file, in the swatches panel I would automatically see 032 C there, no need to hunt around a convoluted pallet/swatch system, just there and usable for anything I may need to do to match and use colours present in the placed document. It is so simple and basic and I think, as I have again said before, they should flat out copy Adobe on this rather then try and re-invent the wheel.
-
6 minutes ago, Sotalo said:
If people get 2 years of updates for free and the program stays affordable, that's literally not a problem. I paid $75 for the suite and I'm set for two years. Adobe's tactics were to force people off of perpetual licenses and turned them into subscriptions. And the subscription fee for their suite is $53 a month. I don't mind paying $150 every 2 years to stay current with Affinity. When Adobe updated their software before, it used to cost $1,500 for the master collection which had marginal updates every year. Corel Draw is similarly expensive. Anyone starting now really needs to get on Affinity pronto.
When the last 10 years of updates to Photoshop have been a free plugin and stuff a $55 program does better, there will come a day when the other programs take over. We just need a few pros on Serif's team to recommend things like game-dev-centric workflows, and now you've just captured an entire rapidly growing field. Not just hobby artists.
You are still going to have fragmentation when you pay for every update because many people are just not going to do it. Not everyone stays up to date on what is out and what is new, they have something that works and they just keep plugging along. This works fine when you are isolated to yourself but can be a mess when you need to play with others and share files.
As you mentioned it was $1500 for the master collection. If you update every 2 years it is cheaper to be on the subscription plan then it is to buy out right. Anyone starting now really needs to stick with the standard if they intend to work with other people in the industry because they will quickly find it is not so easy collaborating in an Adobe dominated world with something other than Adobe.
Adobe made a business decision to go this route, as did many others. There are many positives for the end user with a monthly subscription and I think they are far outweighs the negatives.
Again not for everyone, if you are not making enough from the software to pay for $55 a month that it is obviously not geared towards you. You thankfully have options, and a great suite of options that has not been there before Affinity. It is very cheap and feature rich and hopefully one day will do everything you need it to do!
- Wosven and chessboard
-
2
-
40 minutes ago, Sotalo said:
Adobe used to sell perpetual student licenses: I paid $600 for the student version of the design bundle CS4, and that was acceptable for commercial work. But I noticed something odd: the new versions from then on didn't add much new features. Maybe one good new feature in Photoshop per year, and that's fine because most of it is backwards compatible. But InDesign would totally break compatibility. Illustrator too, if you actually use one of the major features every release.
Fact is if you made something in InDesign years ago and your business switched to a continual license, you will no longer be able to use the perpetual software anymore. Something you totally got incorrect, Adobe is forcing people into subscribing to software that used to be sold for a one-time fee. And do the programs work better? No. 90% of what I use in Photoshop and Illustrator I can get in Affinity, and most of the stuff I love about Affinity, Photoshop and Illustrator were never and will never be able to do. Adobe is grandfathered in from decades of being an industry leader, but at this very moment they aren't leading. I updated Photoshop and lost features, how are they still in the lead? Only because everyone uses them. Only because InDesign files totally break compatibility with older versions, even within the CC suite. Adobe was a leader with perpetual software for years without issue, now all of a sudden you're telling me there will be issues with perpetual software. WOW. FYI, I purchased Affinity a year ago, the whole suite for $75, and I'm still getting free updates without issue. Adobe would never.
The problem is everyone considers Adobe the default, and it shouldn't be that way. CS6 brought content aware fill nearly a decade ago: that was the last major improvement to Photoshop. A free plugin for GIMP. Now their best new feature is neural filters, inferior to Affinity in every way. The only other changes beyond that were decrements, some of which brought the program to a screeching halt. Adobe plateaued in an industry that is continuing to tower over their shoulders. Respect should be given to those who earn it, and Adobe 100% totally lost mine. If Affinity gets support for actions, plugins, and fixes a few of the workflow issues, they absolutely will destroy Adobe. Like I said, professionally, I don't really need much. Professionals need Adobe mainly because other professionals use Adobe. Not because the program is totally superior. The Adobe house is falling. Once Affinity's few issues are fixed, designers will realize they need to get out of the sinking house and get a new one. I wouldn't mind paying $200 per program if it can totally replace Adobe. It does 90% what we need it to do. But that remaining 10% is the problem. Affinity is not there yet, but I really want them to be. My side business is 100% Affinity and it's been a really good experience.
Your perpetual licenses are still good on top of CC, they are perpetual, not dependant on a subscription. The price is actually a little cheaper for CC if you were to upgrade a perpetual license every 2 years. I can still install CS6 from my perpetual license with no issue (as long as the OS supports it), same goes for CS5. The only reason I have ever gone back to an older version of the software was because of a plugin that was not out for the latest version. This is not a common thing needing to go back to old software to open old files as the new files will open fine in the vast majority of cases in the latest version.
If you don't see the value then it is not for you obviously, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is Adobe's job to make software to bring people in, and they are doing that as their increase in users continues to rise.
Everyone considers Adobe the default because it is an industry standard which again I think you minimize the important of. Knowing I am using the exact same software as the design house, print shop or anyone else is a HUGE breath of fresh air from the days of everyone on different versions and updates. Affinity will have this issue when they get beyond V1. The adobe house is far from falling and again bringing in the money for Adobe, there is no decline at the moment for Adobe, it seems to be your strange emotional anger against the company as you call for a "fall" like it is some tyrannical government. I bought all 3 apps from Affinity to see what they were doing, and I like what they have done so far but it is not something I am going to replace Adobe for and it will take a very long time for that to happen to make them anything like Adobe, being the standard they are. You can make your sky is falling predictions all you want, but the numbers do not lie and professionals do not balk at the price of the software that makes them their money and plays well with virtually everyone else. It is the outsides, the corel users, quark users, affinity users that make things difficult (when they have not setup their files properly, lots of good files come from all these apps).
-
you want to have a hyper link embedded in the image itself that is displayed in Facebook? Not sure if that can be done, would actually be a scary thing if images had hidden hyperlinks that you click on the picture would then bring you to whatever webpage is associated with it.
-
42 minutes ago, Sotalo said:
Literally the only reason people are using Adobe is because these programs have been grandfathered in. I played with Photoshop 7, trained on Photoshop/Ill/InDesign CS3 and I used Illustrator CS2 onward, and got invested in the CS5.5 and CS6 suites in college, but Affinity blew them all away. If desktop publishing started today, there's no doubt in my mind everyone would be using Affinity and Adobe would be laughed out of the room. The saving grace for Photoshop is actions. Illustrator's saving grace, I guess, would have to be effects. Plus the stability of these programs when going to print. But Affinity's workflow is much better, and I feel it's inches away from rendering Adobe completely and totally obsolete.
File versions don't matter if the program is inexpensive. Adobe Photoshop Professional alone used to cost over $1,000. For that price you can buy the entire Affinity suite several times over, it's no wonder people were pirating Adobe. They got complacent. They felt they're the only option. They set up a ridiculous certification program with minor tweaks every year to sell educational instruction books every year and quit perpetual licenses so they can rake in more money every year. They thought they could get away with it. They were wrong.
I want to see Affinity where they rightfully belong. Fixing these little things will push them over the top. And if they want to create brand new versions, go ahead. I'll pay $55 for a program that crushes Adobe. But not unless they fix the things that actually need fixing. Not just a hobby program, but one that really sticks it to Adobe.
That is your personal opinion and not based on any factual statistics. People did not have to sign up for CC, they could have been working in CS6 to this day as long as they did not upgrade their OS. You can have ideas and fantasies, but they are purely hypothetical and it does not work that way. Photoshop used to be bundled for free with scanners, they have come a long way and are the standard. Standards themselves are nothing to push aside lightly, they make life so much easier for the industry that has them. If everyone were to jump to Affinity today you would see the headaches come after a few versions when people did not pay to upgrade to the latest version.
People were pirating Adobe and anything and everything else because they do not want to pay. If you can't afford the price of pro software then again it is not made for you. Stealing it because it is too expensive does not prove anything but that people will steal anything they can get their hands on.
File versions definitely do matter if you want consistency, if everyone is using different software and swiping files around you are in for some massive headaches and unhappy clients.
Not sure why the animosity towards Adobe, they are just a software company, not an evil corp trying to dominate the world. They make software, good software for all sorts of creative things. If you don't like it you don't have to use it.
-
15 minutes ago, Sotalo said:
If you work at an industrial capacity, the price is not a problem. But most creatives do not drum up enough business to warrant the price. I'm talking the kind of people who go to Michaels and purchase beads and leather string to make a bracelet. Also, students, and the recently graduated. Plus, the fact of the matter is I had a better drawing experience using Krita, a free program, than I ever had in Photoshop. And Affinity Designer allows the blending of raster shading with vector linework, NOT A SINGLE Adobe program is even capable of that. Not unless you want to consider Photoshop and Indesign's HORRIFIC pen tools a "vector editor."
For many years Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign were the holy trinity of desktop publishing. You did your photo manipulation and corrections/editing in Photoshop, your logo and vector design in Illustrator, and your layouts and publishing in InDesign. And for many years that was the best experience, and the features added to the capacity: Illustrator got a 3D perspective grid to assist in 3D views for, say, a cityscape. And Photoshop got quick select, a tool that made me wonder how we ever lived without. But then those features died: perspective, of course, was very difficult to use, Illustrator is not Sketchup. And truth be told, my experience with Affinity Photo is so smooth and clean that I don't often find the need to use selections to make spot changes. The developing process for full photos is extremely fast and clean, the need for constantly selecting and masking adjustment layers goes way down. For everything, Affinity is just better.
Photoshop has plateaued to the point of death. The newest big feature, "Neural Filters," which are still in development, do exactly the same thing Affinity Photo is already capable of doing, but even faster with even better results. Noise reduction? Come on. I can get amazing noise reduction in 1 second just dragging one slider in Affinity Photo, and it doesn't just blur everything like Photoshop. And yes, when Illustrator had those buggy issues I wasn't able to do what our business needed. I had to load in a very large 4800x3000 image to manually go over in vector, and the program just kept crashing. Then the simplify tool obliterated all my geo so I couldn't use my normal workflow anymore. Compared to Affinity Designer which I have some rather complex pieces with tons of layers, vector layers, and lighting/shading and adjustment layers stacked on top and in-between each other and aside from some slowdowns changing the views, the program I purchased for $25 runs more reliably and with better features than Adobe Illustrator, which requires a monthly donation to Adobe so their dumb teams can continue to wreck themselves.
So, to be clear, I position Affinity in a much higher order than Adobe right now. It does everything I need better than Adobe, and there are workflows and processes that are literally impossible to accomplish without it. And to the dumb team developing Adobe, if they really want to fix the stubborn attitude of the decades-old program that we've since moved on, charging $53 a month to get rid of the percentage slider and ruin features is not the way to do it.
But seriously, even a free vector program like Inkscape has image trace. There are just a few nit-picky things in Affinity's suite that block workflows, and if those things were changed it would be perfect. And I don't think these things are that difficult to implement. Redrawing a selected line to fix it? Copy+pasting in individual channels for mask export for games? Allow us to position images for print? Small nitpicks, but a good enough selection to completely block utility of the program. I now have it in my process to take my images to Inkscape just for the image trace, and then take that back to Affinity for everything else. If Serif doesn't have enough money for better development, at least let me buy a plugin so I can do this now!
Adobe is not geared for the hobbyist, it is designed and priced for production pro environments where people are making their living with the software. Right or wrong is a matter of opinion, this is what Adobe wants though. If they wanted to go after the casual users they would definitely need a cheaper light option.
Indesign, Illustrator and Photoshop are still the holy trinity of desktop publishing. They are the standard. There are few people still using Quark and Corel, but from my anecdotal experience they are older shops who are just maintaining and serving the customer base they have till they retire. I don't think anyone would say Adobe is perfect, there is always room for improvement but the mere fact that any design house, any print shop, anyone in the industry are almost all using the same version is amazing. I remember the days of dealing with files from various versions, needing to update or to get the client to send in IDML files, or PDF's to try and work from that. Those headaches are almost completely gone. Affinity does not have that issue right now as they are still V1. What happens when Affinity is 4 or 5 versions in? You are going to have that fragmentation again if files do not move across older and newer versions.
I think it is great for anyone who can move to Affinity, the savings are huge! The reality is though that many many many people/shops cannot switch over for various reasons. The forums are full of them with people trying to accomplish the same thing with Publisher, Designer and Photos. I have had one file come in that was made with Designer. It was simple and easy to edit in Designer, but there was no difference then if I was dealing with an Illustrator file, they both just work. It will take a lot to topple the standard because they very idea of a standard is so much better then pockets of people all using different software and trying to work together to get good end results. Affinity has great software for a great price and they are better suited for those home users where $60 a month is a heavy burden.
-
On 8/29/2021 at 10:29 PM, Sotalo said:
For illustration that makes sense, especially if you're more interested in the pen quality than dealing with tons of layers. But vector is notoriously difficult to work with because the lines have to be generated anytime you move the scene, and hardware acceleration on tablets is lackluster. Raster is more difficult to lay down very large brushes, but easier to change the view. I do more technical graphics work and 3D, tablets are out of the question.
I noticed Affinity's price increased to $55. Let's hope we get some new features to go along with this increase. Like... image trace!
The price is so incredibly cheap already, not sure why you would expect new features because of a simple price hike.
On 8/26/2021 at 1:38 AM, Sotalo said:The professional world needs an affordable alternative to Adobe Illustrator. And several offerings are clamoring for that space. The problem is Adobe was a monolith for many years, they were a monopoly, and their teams were amazing. But they have all disbanded. In the latest release, Photoshop's Export As feature was reduced from a percentage down to options like "Very good." Illustrator had updates that completely broke the performance and simplify tools, and they've been scrambling to get it all back in order. All the new additions I've seen in these programs over the years have clearly been done by a younger, inexperienced team of developers, not necessarily designers for the intention of catering to professionals, and the overall decision has been to only make updates that users hate so they waste time having to revert it and give people a reason to continue paying. So even without the stupid subscription, the Adobe house is falling. I considered what it would take for my workplace to stop providing me an Adobe subscription, and honestly there's not too much that I really need.
The problem is Affinity Designer, if it ever wishes to be more than just a side drawing program for fun, needs more attention to the workflows and necessities of professionals so they can do everything they need to do in one program. This is not fun stuff, it's stuff like vectorizing raster images, fixing lines by drawing near them, and maybe not having totally random glitches when sending to print. The big updates have stopped, now it's just small tweaks and refinements.
There is a much bigger market for this program than what Affinity set out to make. It was marketed to professionals, we were promised a program that can do it all. We're willing to spend a lot more than $25 for that program, but we're not given the option.
If your business is running that lean that you cannot afford the monthly Adobe subscription I would question the viability of that business. We have many licenses so pay a fair bit every month but that is a small fraction of what we bring in using the software. I have not seem the doom and gloom you seem to be seeing with the Adobe apps, yes they have little glitches now and then but nothing that has made it completely unusable or have had noticeable performance issues for me. I would also not say the "Adobe house is falling". From what I see their user base is continuing to grow. Now with Affinity you are getting a whole heck of a lot of features for all 3 apps that run just about the same amount as one month of Adobe. It is not something I would switch to as I like what Adobe is doing with CC and it has solved so many headaches going this route.
-
44 minutes ago, tamjk said:
The way things are trending now, it will be the drift of existing Windows users towards user-friendly Linux distros that drags Affinity to Linux rather than the other way around.
Windows 11 is something that will drive this trend.
So will the new-found independence people feel after working alone from home during the covid crisis.
No one wants to be a client of Microsoft, Apple, Adobe or whoever any more than have their social exchanges monitored by Facebook.
I think most people don't care as much as you think they do. If people really hated Adobe why is their user base continually rising? Windows 11 from my understanding is going to be free for anyone using Windows 10 so upgrading on that alone costs nothing. Of course you need a PC that supports Windows 11 which seems like it is going to be a very small number to start. That being said the OS is becoming less and less important. I prefer Mac OS but like Windows 10 as well, but very little time is spent in the actual OS itself, it is all spent in the applications.
-
11 minutes ago, Wosven said:
They can't, since for example, individual round corners introduced in CS5 weren't available in CS4... They can't fix, but ignoring the data, and that mean a different result.
A lot of people here seems to use the last CS version to avoid monthly fees.
Sometimes, you won't upgrade to avoid paying new version of costly plugins, or simply because really important plugin-scripts made by someone who doesn't work anymore in the company is really complicated or costly to update.
Last time I checked (2 years ago), it was 2 versions on the same computer, and it was a pain to modify registry entries for the files to open in the previous version since I was just testing the last one.
New OSes will force people to update, but there's a huge problem with cost: it means new computers, new licences, new fonts... When you need to update all of those, you risk your administrative and accounting manager to have an heart attack... and he'll ask you to wait some (relative value here) years to be able to do this. Or you need to prepare him quietly with studies and calculations, etc.
It waas easier in a small studio, when we just updated a computer at a time, and licences for all.
Most of the files I receive today are made my the latests versions (but those clients shouldn't have difficulties updating), or made by unknow apps and converted.
But it would be a waste of time if Affinity should check and update constantly an IDML convertion. It's easier to import from IDML. You just read the common proprieties, and convert them to your file format if they exist.
In the other way, you should be sure that one of those parameters, if erronous, doesn't corrupt the file: https://www.indesignjs.de/extendscriptAPI/indesign16/#Application.htmlFor now, getting rid of bugs and adding important features seems more important.
It is all anecdotal really, but I don't have any clients or design houses holding onto CS6 or earlier. Everyone I deal with is using CC. This saves so many headaches and as you mentioned and you get rid of those incompatibility issues. I think it is safe to say the vast majority are using Adobe CC. They continue to grow and increase their subscriptions so there is no large pocket of hold outs otherwise I think you would see Adobe looking at changing their strategy. I have not been forced to update yet on my iMac. I am still on Mojave, and we have a few computers using High Sierra as well with latest Adobe offerings.
-
2 hours ago, Wosven said:
Yes, like when we converted QXD files to INDD, it was temporary and for urgency, until we could clean or recreate them properly.
It's already a pain between IDML from different CS/CC versions, when you need to check that each object is as it should be, or modify it if features aren't available in an older version... But you dn't always update versions... because... hahem, Affinity apps aren't the only ones that produce a terrible update blocking everyone for 1 week (now, they permit having 2 versions installed).
Adobe for the most part has fixed this issue with CC. Now everyone has the same version or with the click of button can have the same version with no added cost beyond their monthly fee. I can't remember the last time I had issues with a designer or another shop and having different versions of the big Adobe trio. Adobe also allows you to keep older versions when upgrading as well and it is not limited to one version. I don't think there is a limit really though I only keep one version back incase something went wonky with the new. This is more a habit as I can still download and install the previous version if I need to.
-
-
Depending on the complexity of the image and the background you want removed, it does not always take that long to remove the "paper" from the scan. You can do select all the white background and delete. Issues come when colours are close to white and get selected as well as the white. You can do it all manually and again, unless a super complex image like trying to remove background through foliage or strands of hair, it is not super time consuming.
If it is worth paying for there is a website you can use and do it yourself. You can see with a low quality image how it will come out before paying for anything
-
On 8/25/2021 at 3:36 AM, chris35 said:
+1 it would be a great thing to port them to Linux! I haven't used Windows for years, and my Affinity licenses don't help me ...
You have Affinity licenses but have not used Windows for years, are you using a Mac or just super generous to buy software you don't use?
On 8/16/2021 at 5:38 AM, Framelynx said:Ahh right you are. I wonder how much a port of Affinity would cost?
I'm sure it would still be cheaper than actual dedicated development for linux, which would be in the millions.
What do you get with this port if you had the group in the link you posted do it? What happens when Affinity has updates, are they given the base Linux code to do this themselves? Curious how this would work for developers who do not have in house people to maintain and program for Linux.
-
19 hours ago, R C-R said:
I don't think that is a safe assumption. For example, I have a 27 inch "Late 2012" iMac, which has the screen attached to the case using very strong adhesive strips, & removing the screen is the only way to open the case to get to anything in it other than RAM. It takes skill, patience, & a bit of luck to get the screen off without damaging it, to remove the old adhesive strips, & to get the replacement strips in the correct position to reattach the screen properly.
Even if you manage to do that correctly, disassembling the parts to replace anything is not easy -- depending on what needs replacement, practically everything needs to be disassembled & removed from the case. Get one screw wrong during reassembly & there is a good chance something will short out, overheat, or otherwise cause problems.
There are Apple certified repair places (not Apple stores) that will do this all for reasonable prices, at least around here. There are also kits you can buy on OWC to do these things yourself. It can be finicky but can be done. And if you are tossing the computer anyways why not try? At the very least if it is a hard drive issue you can boot off an external.
-
16 hours ago, R C-R said:
Good luck trying to replace the hard drive on most Macs made in the last several years. For example, for most iMacs you need special tools to open the case & if you do not do it right you can damage the display. Apple also uses special connectors for some SSD's so finding a replacement for one of them can be challenging & expensive, & if it is soldered in there is no practical way to replace it.
If it is a relatively new Mac then it is either under AppleCare warranty. If only a couple please years old then this is incredibly bad luck and I would be more upset by a new Mac dying then I would be about $149 worth of software. I think it is safe to assume it is a Mac that has been around for a few years, and those are much easier to fix.
-
14 hours ago, Seagirlrun said:
I just purchased the complete design suite $149 for all three products. Almost immediately afterward and before I could began using the software, my Mac more or less died. My husband offered to build me a pc and now I have windows. I feel so cheated that I bought this suite for Mac and now have to buy it again when I haven't even used the first set I bought.
In what way were you cheated? It is unfortunate that your computer died, but that is not Affinities issue and nothing malicious was done. I would question what died on your Mac. I have been using Mac's for a long time and I think I have come across only one that just completely up and died. If it is a hard drive you can replace that for cheap and be up and running again in no time.
-
1 hour ago, NotMyFault said:
Agree mostly.
When you have limited resources you must prioritize.
I cannot understand that Affinity prioritizes new features over crash fixing and functional issues. And i don’t think of OpenCL related bugs, im thinking of crash by unchecked user input, functionality not reached.
And when users request a functionality for years, Affinity should simply provide a clear statement (e.g. no support for Linux next x years) instead of ignoring the discussion completely.
It may not be as simple fixing the issues right now, I am sure they would be working on it otherwise word would get around that the software is unstable and would ultimately kill the business. It is obviously not happening fast enough for some.
I don't think Affinity giving a clear statement would really help anything, people still go on and on about why they should do this or that. The Linux thread is a great example, it has been said from Affinity they are not looking to develop for Linux at the moment but still it goes on.
-
I think trying to have user input on direction can lead you all over the place. Not all users are active or even on the forums. I am sure they have a road map and direction they are planning that they have strategized about. You are never going to please everyone, what is important for some is not important to others. Others may need more work to impliment or are not realistic. So you have a bunch of people vote for what they want, they win the vote but then Affinity vetos it as not being feasible yet and you are right back where you started with some people not being happy.
I rarely use the Affinity software, I bought it to test and see what is out there against Adobe (which I use professionally and really like). The resources at Affinity pale in comparison to Adobe or many other software developers. Expecting the same level of software as Adobe's but for a fraction of the cost is not realistic. Not saying they should not be trying to put out the best, bug free, software they can, they just have limitations with their few hundred staff compared to the 10's of thousands at Adobe.
-
1 minute ago, Zainab Abbas said:
I agree with you, I didn't know this client would request a psd so I made it in affinity designer, because I am so comfortable with the workflow in AD I don't want to move back to PS and AI.
Thankfully only a very small number of my clients ever request a working file. Not really an issue for me as I work with Adobe so it is a standard format but I do understand the frustration. If you can work faster and better and produce the same quality of work for a fraction of the cost of Adobe I would hate hitting that brick wall when someone needs a format that is not native.
-
You don't even need cracking tools, I can do it simply and free in Mac OS with the tools that come with every Mac computer. I still use password protecting on my proofs I send out, most of my clients are not tech savvy and other shops around here have passed up on jobs because they could not get around the security.
Spine Calculator
in Pre-V2 Archive of Affinity on Desktop Questions (macOS and Windows)
Posted
I would imagine APUB is still showing total individual pages. Facing pages does not change how many pages are in the document, just how they are laid out. Facing pages shows what it will look like when open. For a perfect bound you will want to move your text out from the centre, this will depends on how large the book is. I recently did a 178 page perfect bound book (89 sheets) and shifted out away from the spine about .25". When you think about a book think how it opens, you lose things into that binding as you are not really seeing the whole sheet.
When exporting make sure you are doing single pages and not in spreads.