Fixx

Palettes and swatches is one area where Affinity could be better. Now it is manageable but not optimal. Affinity in general is very capable, with some parts missing, but workflowwise it could be more streamlined.

Well, the difference may be too small to show. I generally use TIFF format in my printed matter (and most of the online materials too) as images will be compressed anyway to JPEG within PDF and I want to avoid repeated compressions, and it is always possible that I will have to open image again to make some corrections. But generally it should make no difference in normal print jobs. Only in very high end printing will benefit from 16-bit or uncompressed files. Of course JPEG compression quality must never be set too low.

Ligature problem. I think that usually that happens when opening PDF, but you say it happens opening Affinity 1.7 file in Affinity 1.8?

In my tests I have not been able to make normal traditional clipping path to a TIFF file with Affinity Photo. InDesign does not recognise path made with Photo.

I don't know how to set PS to send to Photo and if there would be any benefit, but in LR:

If you want to paint to your images wacom or XP-pen (or iPad Pro) is the way to go. If you get by using simple pointing tool in your work mouse is enough.

Quality 85 is not very appropriate for digital distribution. It is though the old Affinity default. I tried with press quality settings (Affinity offers in version 1.8 quality 98 which has changed from earlier version), file size 115 MB (which feels quite ok though many images were missing). I also tried DIGITAL setting but changed quality 85 to 25 and got 3,1 MB PDF file. Probably 25 is too low but as I do not use yet Affinity for production I am not sure what setting would be good enough. Thus, I think there has not happened anything drastic in export engine, just export settings defaults have changed. It is a good idea to experiment and choose settings according that. Generally I tend to use higher DPI and compress more in digital/net distribution.

That is sick, man... 😎 Great that it works (I have not upgraded FF as latest version did not seem to have must have features)

Roundtrip from LR to Photo and back should work ok. You just will get a new version of the image in LR catalogue (TIFF I think).

Undo/redo was corrected just by changing undo preference from 0 to other value. Upgrade just had zeroed that preference.

Does that mean that compound paths are non-destructive, so you can edit component paths and change boolean at will?

Have you checked the compression settings?

It should not ask to select resample method. Is there something in the work flow which might cause this?

I am assuming you use Photo. When you select "export" the default pixel size is the exact pixel dimensions of your document. No resampling happens.

In Photo it is remarkably similar to Photoshop.

This is meant to mean that you are supposed to drag the Affinity Designer icon to the APPLICATIONS folder. the APPLICATIONS folder in the disk image is good for that as it is a shortcut to your applications folder. (Actually you can drag the Affinity Designer icon about anywhere as long as the app is somewhere in your mass storage. Only virtual disk like the dmg image is not good.)

I think most Affinity users are waiting for LRkiller, and maybe one third of the users are hoping for TrueDAM. It is very unclear if these two can be combined successfully.

I have proposed Designer to be renamed as GodotDraw.

Bleed can be built manually but I would not recommend it. Current bleed implementation is good and works when done as explained. Manual bleed is complicated and can mix things up in some systems as PDF contains different kind of "meta" boxes for content and bleed and imposition sw may rely on them.

Story editor does not help to find hyphenation errors which are the main reason I check body text through.

Probably it has not occurred anyone Photo should have layer crop tool. I do not know any other sw that has. People are used to using mask tools instead as they are more capable in photo editing tasks.

100 % in Photo is identical to 100 % view in this thread viewed with Chrome. Photo does not mangle your image, but sometimes its zooming routines do not present best possible view of the image. Resampling with suitable method (Lanczos for example) and sharpening with USM can give you slightly better image. Here is 4X resampled image (1976X1808) done with Topaz Gigapixel AI which has best upsampling algorithm at the moment. It looks pretty good but letter forms are mangled visibly (not smart enough AI for typographic content... 😄

No, you have to fake it. I.e. cut or mask the frontmost object so that it reveals desired parts from below. I would start by copying underneath objects and placing them as mask to upper ones.

Why do you need such resolution? 🙂 Anyway, if you do "Save as" it will take longer and get rid of some no longer needed data.