Artem M

I like the way AD operates with artboards and find it useful and logical. But if you deals with printing you have to see what is in bleed area of ready layout. And once again the way it realized in document without artboard is perfect (you can clip to canvas with or without bleed) My feature request is to give an ability to those who deals with printing to see what is in bleed area (for example reacting on flag “Show Bleed” and clip with or without bleed) even in artboard mode because visual control of what you have there is very important in prepress.

Clip to Canvas is automatically ENABLED when you have an Artboard and can’t be disabled. And the problem is that i can’t see what is in bleed area of artboard i this case. 

When viewing page with bleed and "Clips to Canvas" enabled it shows the content of bleed area and its perfect but when you using artboards there is no way to see what is in bleed area. It will be great to have an ability to disable "Clip to Canvas" in artboard or/and show content of bleed area when "Clip to Canvas" and "Show Bleed" enabled

When viewing page with bleed and "Clips to Canvas" enabled it shows the content of bleed area and its perfect but when you using artboards there is no way to see what is in bleed area. It will be great to have an ability to disable "Clip to Canvas" in artboard or/and show content of bleed area when "Clip to Canvas" and "Show Bleed" enabled

When viewing page with bleed and "Clips to Canvas" enabled it shows the content of bleed area and its perfect but when you using artboards there is no way to see what is in bleed area. It will be great to have an ability to disable "Clip to Canvas" in artboard or/and show content of bleed area when "Clip to Canvas" and "Show Bleed" enabled

I like the way AD operates with artboards and find it useful and logical. But if you deals with printing you have to see what is in bleed area of ready layout. And once again the way it realized in document without artboard is perfect (you can clip to canvas with or without bleed) My feature request is to give an ability to those who deals with printing to see what is in bleed area (for example reacting on flag “Show Bleed” and clip with or without bleed) even in artboard mode because visual control of what you have there is very important in prepress.

When viewing page with bleed and "Clips to Canvas" enabled it shows the content of bleed area and its perfect but when you using artboards there is no way to see what is in bleed area. It will be great to have an ability to disable "Clip to Canvas" in artboard or/and show content of bleed area when "Clip to Canvas" and "Show Bleed" enabled

Same here - and I just found a perfect place for it: go dig it.

Totally agree to this request, and I must say I can't believe that we have to pray for this basic feature.

Hi all,
Yes I agree with this feature being added. It should just have the option to toggle between having the bleed area visible and not visible. Would help a lot of designers! A "work around" for this issue is to use Affinity publisher (if you have it) and then you can switch into designer from there if you prefer working in designer. Pblisher is really quick and efficient and you'll have better color accuracy for printing too...just saying.

It's actually kind of both. It's disabled in that you can see objects that are outside of the artboard, in the pasteboard area:

However, objects are clipped to the Artboard, and if an object is in an Artboard then only the portions within the Artboard will be visible. So in that sense it's enabled.
And that's what causes the bleed problem that you (and I) would like to see fixed.

Unfortunately, you still can't assign shortcuts to Macros in Affinity Photo, as far as I'm aware. But when they add that feature, this is probably the way to go. Or Serif could just add a "Rasterize and Merge Down" command and people could just use that instead. Or make the standard Merge Down behave like we want, and then make a "Merge Down & Blur" that does what it Merge Down currently does....and people can just not ever use that

Just in short, FORCE the application to always use Millimeters to the users needs. (set it once, just like in Ai) Basta. So the application has to convert it, so no matter what you export it to, it will always honor the users decision for units. This is so damn simple. Just cannot understand why this is such hassle. Everyone would agree with me, with design or other areas. NOBODY USES px in vector orientated designsoftware. Pixels is for pictures, mm is for vector/designwork.

A designer specializing in layout work who doesn't know or care about separations is an expensive accident waiting to happen. Black RGB text that prints blurry, or black text at 7pt that's not set to overprint, or images with an RGB black background which auto-separates into rich black that are placed inside a CMYK K-only black rectangle in the hope of it looking seamless – the client is not going to be happy.
I routinely check anything that goes to print in separations preview, and one out of three times, I spot a last-minute problem that needs to be fixed. Partly this is because of idiosyncrasies of InDesign's quirky transparency flattener, but still, it's an important step in any software that helps you prevent costly situations like re-printing 500 000 copies of a document because you missed a very small but very stupid problem.
While in my opinion not absolutely essential for a 1.0 release (a software like Acrobat can be used to check the PDFs if need be), it's definitely far from just a "nice to have" feature.

It should not be necessary to think about pixel alignment or resolution differences (as long as there is resolution enough).
The document should look the same before and after merging. Layered document creates a merged look on screen on the fly anyway and it should be true. If the look changes upon merging it is up to devs to correct behaviour, it should not be up to user to adjust layers.

What would be a case where such blurring when merging down would be desired?

Affinity Photo is the only photo editing program that I have ever encountered that requires you to be concerned about having pixels aligned for the simple act of merging down.
We're in the year 2021, not 1995.
I worked long and hard on a project when just starting out with Affinity...only to realize the blurring upon close inspection. It was HOURS of work ruined.
If Affinity is going to insist on keeping this absurd quirk, then there should be a pop-up warning explaining the blur.
 
 

It's extremely disappointing that this huge bug in base program functionality still exist! Dear developers why are you deaf to our complaints?

Every time I give it a shot I get some stupid bug or bad functionality from Affinity, first I had problems with Publisher which made me stop using and today I tried Photo and guess what? I'll have to stop using it, small basic problems like these are not acceptable, really.

Hi all
For anyone with the same frustration - an important workaround for this issue...
To see what is in your bleed area for a document where clip to canvas is enabled (for whatever reason) use the 'Outline' view to display element edges:
View > View Mode > Outline (Cmd+Y by default I believe).
This may be very confusing for a complex design, but it does at least show what is there.
-------
Major +1 for a "Disable Clip to Canvas and show pasteboard elements with art boards" feature request: displaying bleed area outside of an art board is pretty vital for software that's doing it's best (hooray!) to challenge Adobe. Print is still a fundamental part of communication and bleed is a fundamental part of that.
The clip to canvas feature, while great in terms of an uncluttered design view, is flawed. As soon as a document contains more than one art board (page/canvas/content area - not a discussion I want to get into here) the 'clip to canvas' (shouldn't that be "Clip to art board(s)"?) feature is automatically forced upon us with no way to properly see what's there. I assume this comes from a publishing-for-screen bias where bleed is (generally) not a requirement. I am guessing that the feature works the way it does so that NON RECTANGULAR art boards (wow!) can have clipping (from a developer's perspective). If true this would assume that Affinity are expecting non-rectangular screens to be a thing of the near future.... unless Affinity is preparing us for an 'Assembly' app that uses the elements created in Photo and Designer?
Or am I missing something?

I like the way AD operates with artboards and find it useful and logical. But if you deals with printing you have to see what is in bleed area of ready layout. And once again the way it realized in document without artboard is perfect (you can clip to canvas with or without bleed) My feature request is to give an ability to those who deals with printing to see what is in bleed area (for example reacting on flag “Show Bleed” and clip with or without bleed) even in artboard mode because visual control of what you have there is very important in prepress.

Please stop spoil images with basic operations like merge layers or resize canvas. Maybe to give an option to operate with only integer pixel coordinates is a solution? 
 

Thank you guys. It's still not exactly what I was looking for (Since in order to make "simple" rotation I have to: rotate image ˃ open it as separate document ˃ export with the nearest neighbor ˃ open again in affinity ˃ copy to original file), but we're much closer now. It is some solution
 

I believe your intentions were good, however I don't need a lesson but a solution 😉 I already know things you mentioned (or at least I was imagining it like that). I know as well that some graphic software can handle enlarging, rotating etc. in the way I would expect. Example of enlarging without blurring can be even Microsoft Paint. I'm aware that it may result in deformations or other incontinence with the original picture, but its still easier to edit that than pixel-by-pixel editing blurred area. As far as I remembered I was able to do it in Photoshop as well. Unfortunately I don't have access to PS anymore, but Affinity seem to be an excellent tool as well and I would prefer to not to "jump" between different software. Thanks for explanation, tho, I appreciate that you spent some of your time trying to help me 🙂

I agree, for example if you are working in 3D, you simply find that in 3D there are more complex problems that you can´t even imagine in "simple" Photo software. You don´t need waste your mental energy to concentrate on things like "I have to rasterize it every time, I have to rasterize it every time". Why would I do that? I don´t have time for this, I rather spend my money for software where I don't have to deal with such trivial things. I hope that Affinity will do something with this issue in near future.