Jimo

Oh for sure. I wasn't trying to be contrary (well, apart from maybe on that one aspect :p). Otherwise I agree with everything you're saying. Yep. I agree entirely. Like I said in another thread - I think some people must have never had to pay for software before if they think they're getting a raw deal. A 40% discount is massive for something that hardly costs anything to begin with. Even at full price, it's cheaper than almost ANY other viable alternative AND cheaper than the upgrade for some software.

You can pay on a month-by-month basis (and cancel any time), but it also costs more per month that way.

A Reaper licence is good for TWO versions. So if you purchase version 6, you get free updates all the way up to the final update for version 7.

No it's not. It's how software used to be (and some still is) before subscriptions became the norm: you bought it to use 'in perpetuity', but you had to pay to upgrade when they brought out a new version - and still often for a higher price than Serif is offering for their apps, even at full price. Updates between versions were sometimes free, sometimes not. But you were never under any obligation to update or upgrade - you could just keep on using the version you first bought indefinitely. Sometimes, that's all you could do if you bought a boxed version in a store and had no internet access. Some of us carried on using software that was two or three version behind the most recent. Hell, I was still (just about) getting way with using my copy of Photshop 7 on a Windows 8.1 computer up until around two years ago! And that came out in 2002!

-

EVERYBODY gets a FORTY PERCENT discount at the moment. I'll say that again - FORTY PRECENT. That's MASSIVE for something that hardly costs anything to begin with. That's forty percent off something that is ALREADY much cheaper than almost ANY other viable alternative. Yet some people are "unhappy" and think they should be entitled to get EVEN MORE off becasue they already own the previous version? I think some people must have never had to pay for software before if they think they're getting a raw deal. At these prices NONE of us "deserve" an upgrade discount. Even the FULL PRICE is STILL cheaper than almost anything else comparable.

So you're annoyed everyone gets the lower price, not just existing users? Why does that matter? Even at full price, it's still cheaper than almost anything else out there. Compare to Quark Express: Currently £559 for a perpetual license, which gets you updates for ONE year. If you want to upgrade (and you don't have to), you pay an extra £299 for another year. Basically, Serif are not offering an upgrade discount becasue it is ALREADY cheaper than anything else out there, upgrade or otherwise. The dirt-cheap price to begin with is the reward.

Elements costs £86 to purchase. The upgrade is £70. Affinity Photo is currently £36. Even at full price it's still only £60 The entire Affinity V2 suite currently costs £89.99. There is no InDesign Elements or Illustrator Elements.

Seriously, I think even the standard asking price BEFORE a discount is a good enough reward. Some of us remember how much full version upgrades could cost in the days before subscribtion models. Comparatively this is a fantastic deal - and even new users get to benefit.

Nope. None really - and I did say it's probably not worth the extra effort (and I didn't mean to suggest the extra effort is 'better' if that seemed to be inferred). I'd do it with three layers - using a drop shadow was just an afterthought! But you're right, I hadn't considered what happens to the shadow on PDF export, so you have a very good point, and yes in that case it is definitely a disadvantage. I was thinking more from the point of view of creating a graphical element (like say a logo) which might get flattened anyway, rather than used as body text, in which case it's makes no difference (annd therefore even more pointless when it's easier to make three layers! Plus it gives you more creative control). Out of curiosity, I thought I'd see what happens when you export to EPS (which is what I might do for a logo design) using the shadow method - it converted each letter of the text to curves as expected (yay!) but rasterized the shadow to a single bitmap (boo!) So no, I don't advocate using the drop-shadow method, even though I'm the one who brought it up!

You can create it using just TWO layers by adding an outer/drop shadow to one of the layers. Set the shadow ratio to 0px, choose an offset value above 0 so the shadow can be seen as desired and set the angle (around 225 degrees to approximate the example). Make sure the Blend Mode on the shadow is set to Normal so you don't get any translucency on the shadow. Your second layer has no shadow effect applied, and can be used as either your uppermost or lowermost layer and positioned appropriately. Might not be worth the minor extra effort though, when it can probably be more quickly and easily achieved with three layers as already mentioned.

Thanks! That did the trick.

Okay, so one-time in a project I created a text frame and set a background colour with text indentation and now EVERY text frame I draw in the project thereafter uses the same properties. I don't want that, I never want that (okay, perhaps for the times when I might, which isn't often). How do I make it not use the same properties without having to laboriously remove them manually in the hope it will remember that's what I did? EDIT: Using Publisher.

That's what it looks like to me too.

Assuming they are vector shapes, 'merge' the square and the triangle into a single object. Make sure both are selected, right click on them and from the menu pick Geometry > Add (Alternatively the same option is in the Layer menu). They should now be a single object with a single shadow.

I tried what @v_kyr suggested in your original test file and it looks fine to me. Have you changed the alignment of the image and text frames by a small amount as well? The problem could be that you have got stroke on the image frame AND on the text frame below it. If the lower part of the image and the upper part of the text frame are not overlapping perfectly, then where the two strokes meet you could be creating what looks like a double thickness on your lines - because there is two lines next to each other.

I get the same thing sometimes. I think it's just related to the zoom percentage (Photoshop always did something similar on 'uneven' zoom percentages). I find it's not consistent though and I doesn't always do that glitch even on the same zoom settings. But basically just zoom in or out a little and it should go away. It's not really there - it's just a display issue I think and won't be there in any output or print.

Yep. Where it says "CMYKA/8 - US Web Coated (SWOP) v2", that means you are using a CMYK colour profile in Affinity Photo. Your image file is in RGB, but it's getting converted to the CMYK colour space of your document when you import it. It looks 'duller' because CMYK has a more limited colour spectrum and can't reproduce all of the RGB tones. If you're just designing work to be seen on a screen, you can convert your document to RGB to keep that vibrancy by going to: Document > Convert format / ICC Profile.. Select an RGB format and RGB profile and then click on 'convert'. It might be wise to re-import your image file after you've done that (although I think Affinity stores the original RGB data - but definitely reimport if you previously rasterised it, as you can't get back what was lost in the initial RGB to CMYK conversion). Alternatively, when you create a new document, you can set the colour format and profile under the 'Colour' tab in the right-hand column of the New Document window. However, if you're designing something to send for printing, you might want to work in CMYK anyway and accept that you can't have those brighter RGB tones.

I'd never of heard of it before until another thread mentioned it, but I took a look at the feature-set for VectorStyler, and that has 'true' vector brushes as well. Looks pretty decent. It's competitively priced as well, so maybe Affinity Designer needs to catch up!

From time to time I find things missing from the Affinity packages that disappointment me. But then I remember they only cost me 30 quid each.

This thread below sorta answers the question. People commenting there who do use or have used Illustrator confirm it has 'true' vector brushes and are disappointed Affinity doesn't:

Well it's NOT anti-aliasing - switching that off just leaves me with pixelated text. But after performing a few more experiments I think I might have party figured something out. Firstly, I've updated to the latest version of Photo (I was only on version 1.9.2 I think), although the border on the text remains after updating. However, it seemed to have something to do with the background colour. The hex value is 1A171B. I was using CMYK sliders to select the colour in the first place I think. If I switch to HSL and use exactly the same hex value, the border disappears when I add the new background - although of course there is also a slight tonal change in the background colour. If I then switch BACK to using the CMYK sliders and put in the same hex value again, it remains fine (the border on the text doesn't return - although the same background tone doesn't return either). Maybe updating fixed it? I can't be sure (I'm tempted to reinstall the slightly older version to put it to the test!). Perhaps I had some colour format conflict, but I can't recreate it from scratch now. Only by literally copying my original background brings the unwanted border back. Using Designer, changing the colour format in Document Setup also fixed the problem, but I can't find anywhere in Photo to do the same. I'm still puzzled as to why it happened in the first place though.

Thank you! File attached. testtext2.afphoto

Hi. I'm trying to figure out why I'm getting an undesirable border of lighter pixels around the edges of text in Affinity Photo. I've attached an image of example text to show what I mean. It is NOT a text decoration or effects border - neither of those are active - and the 'border' of pixels remains when rasterised and/or exported. I've recreated exactly the same test text in Affinity Designer and there is no border on the text. I have ALSO literally copied and pasted the text frame from Photo to Designer and the border of pixels have gone. However, if I open the actual original AfPhoto document in Designer, then the light pixelated border remains. Is there something at the document level I'm not aware of that I need to set, or if not, what is the solution? Or is this a bug? Help and insight would be appreciated. Thank you.