Fixx

(,,,)

Would be nice if  Serif cloud add an option to fit Crop tool to selection at least.

1. Because as Photo is a pixel editor it tends to display vector files as they will be in pixels.
2. As in 1.
OK, you might want to check the physical dimensions of the file. At the moment there does not fit too many pixels in it.

That is an absolutely false analogy. Is using Illustrator analogous to 'using a car without a reverse' because you have to (egads!) switch to Photoshop in order to edit a raster image?
Auto-tracing is a standalone operation. You do it, and then dink around with the vector results after the fact. You don't auto-trace a raster image, go back and edit the raster image, auto-trace the image again, use other tools to edit the result, rasterize the result, auto-trace it again, ad nauseum. In other words, you don't edit the raster image or the auto-traced results while in the process of running the auto-trace.
There is nothing onerous about switching to a separate utility to run an auto-trace on a raster image, if you must. It's just like using a raster program to create a raster image to your liking, then importing that image into a 3D modeling program to map it to a 3D surface. The 3D modeling program isn't a 'car with no reverse' just because doesn't have its own self-contained raster image editing program.
By your analogy logic, I would have to say that my KTM motorcycle is useless junk because it doesn't have its own built-in pressure washer.
JET

what kind of work flow asks for constant knowledge of word count? 🤭

Placing PDFs as passthrough will be a must in Publisher. There at least should embedded fonts be implemented.

As you say, the point of incorporating forms into the layout package is because it makes sense to edit the layout and form details in the once place, rather than manually having to recreate all the fields as a second step (and "auto-detection" isn't a solution for that). Any changes are easy and don't impact other areas of the form - you may want to keep field names the same (and meaningful) for database processing etc., and if you have hundreds or thousands of fields that's a nightmare of manual work. InDesign does have form editing features but they are bug-ridden and limited. It doesn't handle having form fields in tables*, which seems ridiculous since table layouts are essential for many types of forms (think of product or parts lists).  
* there is a work-around for this but it's not obvious and is bug-ridden - the fields in table cells aren't recognised by InDesign so you can't set the tab order, which still needs to be done in Acrobat. It also loses track of the tab order if fields move from page to page....

Being able to save different workspaces for different needs is a really useful feature. The Adobe Software CS/CC has offered this sort of thing with pre-sets for Photography, Typography, Painting and the ability for the user to create Custom workspaces.  I regularly use the facility on Photoshop & InDesign when writing tutorials for the classes I teach at college.
It would be a fantastic feature to add to all the 'Affinity' software because it allows the end user to work in a way that meets their own requirements. Reading the comments above seems to suggest that this sort of thing is already built-in but hidden. If other software providers  offer this facility is it not time that Affinity  made the feature available in their own software, even if it means adding another few options to the existing Window menu  >>>>>>   New Workspace > Reset Workspace > Delete Workspace. It's not much to ask for, is it?
I would also like to see other developments in Affinity software to make it more intuitive to use, such as adding greater control to the Warp/Mesh tool to make it more like Photoshops  'Free Transform' tool with ability to change option by using a  right click inside the transform  to Scale, Distort, Perspective, Warp etc. 
Or the ability to access more than one RAW file at time in the 'Develop Persona' and then be able to copy/sync develop settings to a whole batch of images just as can be done in 'Adobe Camera Raw' or 'Lightroom'. 
While I have all the Affinity software, I still end up working with Adobe Software just because I can get things done quicker as it is more intuitive. I really hope that the Affinity software gets better and better with each incarnation, I would hope the  development team takes on board the comments from all who have invested in their work. I admit I also need to spend a bit more time using the Affinity software, which will probably happen in my retirement.
Just like the comment above I have a love hate relationship with Affinity Photo, I inform people about the software but always say its missing the little extra bits that make Photoshop easier and quicker to use.

Hi everyone,
I'm new to Affinity and also bought the suite on the sale. There's a lot to like and it could be an excellent alternative to Adobe, but it's crippled by some unfortunate decisions in the UI and some glaring omissions in functionality. I've worked with Photoshop professionally since 1992 (before it even had layers!) and that's my area of expertise so I'll limited my observations to Affinity Photo.
First, the layer palate is non-standard and needlessly obscure. I like that clipped layers are hidden until you click the main layer carrot, but they should appear above when you do, not below! And the mask thumbnail should remain in position next to the layer thumbnail, not drop below. The stacking order in the palate should coincide with the stacking order in the file!  I've also had an issue with some or all of the thumbnails disappearing in the layers palate The channels palate  is arranged well and has the ability to copy 1 or more of the RGB channels to the spare channels, then it drops the ball, giving no way to view or edit the copied channels (applying adjustments, dodging/burning, painting, selecting sections & transforming, etc). Also no way to overlay the spare channel on the work image. No Puppet Warp! The last major improvement to Photoshop IMO. I use this extensively compositing images together. On a smart object it's non-destructive and you can adjust the layer opacity to view the alignment with the lower layers as you manipulate it. Liquify is limited  by comparison. At least Affinity Photo applies Puppet Warp to smart objects when you open a PSD unless you choose to keep them as smart objects. No option to change the modifier keys for mouse/pen actions like resize brush, rotate canvas, etc. Radial blur is rotation only? There's a lot I like about Affinity besides the price and lack of subscription, I love the look, the interconnection  between apps, many of the tools and functions. But the screwy layer palate and the lack of direct editing of channels severely limit it's usefulness (at least for me).

The support would be needed in APhoto so AD and/or APub could make use of them. A photo editing application is what is adept at controlling the various conversion methods to 1-bit, not AD/APub. The latter two just needs to be able to use them properly, but APhoto would be needed to make ém.

Personally, the way ID does it is best to me. In the example, PDF for Print, it would change to PDF for Print [Modified]

In a way... I'd say, though, that Mesh Warp is a actually bit too "delicate"  – you'd be forced to adjust too many handles and or anchors to achieve those rather simple "straight" distortions I was thinking of. Perspective comes nearer but as you always have those 2D planes here (with several points interacting) it appears too difficult – to me at least – to adjust these to the actual (or rather represented) 3D perspective of the image. It would be so easy if for a quick and dirty rule of thumb distortion (or "perspective") adjustment you could just move each corner point separately. I guess anybody who's done this with Photoshop in all those past years will most certainly agree. You don't really want to resort to more or less complicated workarounds once you've experienced ways to do things straight and sipmle...

You can also use stroke panel.
Yes, there is no line tool and we have to make do with pen tool. Hopefully we can use automatic style "decorations" instead.

Bingo- thanks for that insight Fixx, most appreciated.

My first reaction to your thread, before reading it was "YES, Affinity suite can be used for comics, in several ways".   
Luckily, your post has more interesting depth. Yep, the 1-bit has been requested before, useful for a lot of yet current procedure for printing comics (and some other workflows). When I have published in indy comic magazines, humor gags for computer magazines, or just web comics, I have not been that technically advanced (or industry standard), and it just worked fine, for the output that it was, but for serious comic printing workflows, yep, it'd be very nice to have a TIFF and PDF export in true 1 bit. I vote for that.     Or... that a 1-bit tiff layer can be overlaid in publisher (I don't follow Publisher progress... maybe it is possible already?)
In the meantime it could be useful for some ( I dunno), to use a nice little app (available for Mac, Windows and Linux) : XnConvert. I tried first with XnView MP, and as was quite in a rush (still am), didn't investigate more, just went ahead to XnConvert, and it seems to save the day. I have NOT made a full test, neither a real scenario project, but IMO, till we get the feature, this could be useful till a limited extent, without needing to purchase expensive software ( It's freeware.  "If you intend to use XnConvert in a company, you must purchase a license"...but it's 15 euros, zero issue for 1st world countries at least) :
- Unless is an already scanned (with your scanner set so or filtered so) as 1 bit (which is the usual in comics), you can apply any of several possible operations to make it B/W only, even if can only save in APhoto as RGB or etc, not 1 bit. Or if you are directly drawing the lines in Photo (for example), then, besides you will need to work in very zoomed out for such a hi res file,  in Affinity, in that case the brush stabilizer (I like "Window" mode) is a total must, you could draw using the "1 pixel" brush thought for pixel art, as you can increase the size of it as needed, and also make the size sensitive to pressure (obviously ONLY that, not for opacity neither other matters!). This way you would be painting your lines with hard edges, pure bitmap way.
- Then you save normally as an RGB TIFF (for example).
- Open the thing in XnConvert. 
- Actions tab, click Add Action. Then "image". Then 'Set DPI' (1200 ) . As I have NOT made a full test, I am not sure if it'd be just enough to leave the tiff with the dpi it comes with from Photo. Most surely yes, but just in case you have any issue, am adding this step. Ideally, better if you don't have to add the DPI action. It WONT (tested) produce any resampling, but could perhaps make "the pixels bigger" (u know what aI mean..." xDD )
- Add another action,  "change color depth".  In its options, choose "BINARY". Important : In dithering, set NONE.
- Now... it respects the format it is in, it will output as a tiff, if came as a tiff. But if you saved as other format in Photo ( I recommend tiff, tho) , just go to "output" tab. In "format" area, set TIFF.  I set all compression to none. You have a ton of options there and in all the tabs, so review all well, to really get the output you desire. It's really complete, this little tool. If by mistake you set JPG as output...well, that's not what you want.  . The bottom status bar saying the time remaining seems to be wrong; only care about the time it says in the upper part (in my arcane 2009 machine a 12k x 10k takes about 5 secs).
- PDF export... seems to be based in Ghostscript. Dunno if embedded in XnVIEW / XNConvert (commercial license)  or if it is taking my Ghostcript AGPL installation. The thing is, after setting both XNConvert and XnView to display PDF (in global settings, formats, PDF) in read-view as 1200DPI instead of 72, it seems to partially work: It wont be a PDF/X ( I believe it's PDF 1.4), and it makes a very weird thing of making the canvas be 1x1 pixel smaller (in my test, 12800x9600 would become 12799x9599, no idea why). And it'd become a 24 bits file.
So, I guess  this workflow is useful to get a free (or 15 euros license) way of exporting from Photo (the 24 bits tiff) , and converting to a 1 bit TIFF in XNConvert, and u can batch convert one entire folder with a button click with XnConvert. In that sense, only A. Publisher would need support for such layer to overprint (I guess). But would be much nicer to also already export a 1 bit  TIFF from Photo. Maybe the latter is more complex to implement, I don't know. I don't know either enough about publishing matters (I mean, software of the InDesign and Quark type) to know if the other thing would be enough, in Publisher.
So, at least doing this you get a 1200 dpi TIFF, 1 bit depth color mode (checked the output with Irfanview and XnView), which you could have "inked" (1px (much bigger base width) special brush, size variance with pressure) in A. Photo. Or just scanned it as 1 bit.
 

I miss this Illustrator-function.
Input: Overlapping shapes with different colors and blend modes.
Output: Cut out shapes for each intersected part affected by colors below, color equivalent in normal blend mode. (No rasterizing, no pixels.)

Hey All - THANK YOU so much. I've posted on other forums for other software over the years and rarely - if ever - get a response. You all really helped. I was concerned that when my trial ended, whether this was the correct software for me. However with support like this, I'm converting from trial to paid.
Hope to see you around the forums some more as I have a load of other questions.
Thanks again.😀

Now, certainly Affinity should allow gamma slider to go all the way to 11!
I usually handle gamma corrections with curves but gamma slider (are we talking about levels tool?) should allow more extreme adjustments. Maybe entering numbers greater than 2 even when slider ends would be enough as Affinity allows that in some other tools.

Thanks,  Fixx.  Will give it a try.
Jim1964

Tick "Enable Save over opened PSD files" in preferences and you can just simple save over the old version as long as you do not apply any Affinity's own nondestructive operations to that file.

A normal press quality A3 PDF with full image should be somewhere 3-8 MB. Affinity definitely makes them bigger. Possibly there is less image compression applied than in other tools?

The irony is, because this just forum layout, the example I gave was in fact done manually, and I broke it where I preferred the break (I prefer the longer line on top). As you noted, you "prefer" it another way, and of course there is room for different preferences. However, in view of the fact that preferences on where to divide the line manually do vary, I respectfully disagree with your statement that doing it manually is "much better."
But whether longer line on top or not (or perhaps rather division by semantics or not), I prefer even more the savings of time. I recently had a project involving many hundreds of pages of poetic line where each line of verse was a hanging indent. Many of the lines extended beyond a single line by only a word or two, meaning the overflow line was short, and the overall look of the page struck me as hectic, as though the columns of text looked like a comb. I started out by spending several hours manually breaking the lines, but I wasn't even 10% complete and I was running out of time on my schedule. I tried the automatic balance ragged lines in InDesign, and I liked the overall balance of the page better. In fact, I went back and undid most of my manual work and opted instead for the automatic for a clean, consistent appearance.
Also another reason: as a general principle, I avoid as much as possible achieving format by inserting elements into the text.
It is clear that not everyone has the same use to this feature, but it does have its use.

Unfortunately it is much better to do this manually. I would prefer the one above be:
The quick brown fox
jumped over the lazy dog

Why did you make a new Text Style called Body 2. Just edit Body 1 and update the font, and all the existing text using that Text Style will change.

While a reader may think that a book is a book whether it is printed or e-book, they are actually very different things. Publisher excels in creating typographically high quality printed matter using features that mostly would have to be jettisoned when creating e-book version. And e-book, while feature set is very limited, needs to have its programming rules followed very strictly, not a simple task itself. Thus it is at the moment best to use tools developed specially for e-book publishing to get acceptable results. 
Publisher will probably get e-book export capabilities at some point, but adding such a module is not a trivial task. And it is totally different and separate from core typography engine.