Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About deeland

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    New Zealand
  1. @whitewolf7070 That’s interesting. That would raise my suspicions, yes? Adobe CC delivers typefaces (and fonts (further down to all glyphs)) as part of CC being open and active, and connected to the internet. That’s as I remember when I used it last, as I now only use it when a client is willing to pay for the extra overhead. So, with that in mind, does turning off (you've tried on, already) Adobe CC services on all machines (via its own control panel, if memory serves?), effectively disabling all CC fonts. This may very well mean your Publisher document now has no access to the Adobe CC fonts, but does it now crash? Report missing fonts? Worth a test, in my opinion. Further, build a document with fonts installed on your individual computer, if possible, and see if the crashing continues? With all that considered, it would not surprise me to find Adobe CC snookering a user in to having difficulties using third party software, and and Adobe CC typefaces. Food for thought?
  2. @migo33 understood. I tried to replicate your issue, and moved files each time, not copied. Still opened. Seems maybe a permissions issue with the app, as the allow or deny access made no difference. As for parity in outcome: my file opens, yours does not. Which seems to be inconclusive, no?
  3. @migo33 Okay, moved the folder to iCloud, then to local documents: permissions asked for move to documents, I disallowed this time, and still opened. Very odd, but non-conclusive. I suggest you go on holiday for two weeks.
  4. @migo33 20 years? I probably have some loose change on that figure, and still get assigned to "staff" or "everyone" or what was the other one? "Wheel"? Still pops up on occasion, just because it’s Tuesday afternoon, and a blackbird flies over my house at 37º incline. Well, it was worth a try. I’ve essentially avoided starting anything on my desktop, because of permissions issues. Shouldn’t happen, but it does, just because. I’ll try your scenario, and report back, if I can replicate. I’ll probably get locked out of my computer, for my troubles. 😉 edit: just got a permissions alert when saving to desktop. Interesting…
  5. @migo33 I just tested the latest beta with app and files in downloads folder. Had some initial grief with permissions. Just checking: read/write allocated to your user name, I take it?
  6. @Jon P Initially, frames were acting odd, but had to rebuild the Publisher (Beta 1.9.2 1009) document, then carefully do things in a certain order: Place > Designer > first artboard appears on-click. Page Box > Minimum Content Right-click > convert to picture frame (set Properties to None) Still issues with Resource Manager (as shown) with no preview, plus dimensions shown in pixels, even though document set globally to millimetres. If I’m more casual and slap-dash, all "Hades" breaks loose. Seems to be a step in the right direction, but will probably need to rebuild my proper master file, once 1.9.2 goes live. I’m okay with that, if it means future updates behave as expected. Best – Dee
  7. @Tonda technically, programs like PitStop or Callas pdfToolbox, do a “backend number” on a PDF. A PDF was always intended as a way of securing a document. Embedded glyphs of a font could be shipped to prepress without the entire typeface being required. Then the poor folks at prepress always had issues of some sort, so these programs allowed you to “hack” the PDF. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks is like a duck, well, there it is: you know the rest. So let’s not get stuck on the word “hack”, here. Understood. Standard workflow. So you have their logo as a vector file or, a tiny GIF in Word (just kidding, or am I?) separate to the PDF, plus the final PDF advert is supplied to spec, and as you say, no need to edit it. Well, kind of. The PDF still had to be made “correctly” with the typeface glyphs subsetted correctly. This is why pdfToolBox and other prepress tools were developed. But I get what you mean. Supplied PDFs can always have nasty surprises. Well, we just discussed this very thing. Maybe Publisher, and in turn, Affinity, was allowing you to do what you want, due to some oversight by Affinity, in older versions? No idea. Could it be that the PDF sources you are now being supplied are substandard? Can you use an old PDF from your older, successful files still in Publisher? Just trying to understand what has happened here. Sounds like you had it good for a while, but Publisher may have tightened up, or was forced to, on its commitment to PDF security or typeface licensing protection? If Publisher continues to do the work of prepress tools like pdfToolBox or PitStop, that could be an amazing advantage for you, but outside the intended scope of the program. Which in turn could be a legal minefield. That last sentence “… because all this works if you do it manually.” Intrigues me. What do you mean? To be clear, though. I’m not putting up a fight for Affinity here: I still have many issues not resolved myself. I am trying to help you out, here. Is it a “bug” or is it a limitation, introduced intentionally? That’s what I’m trying to understand. Maybe you now have to purchase a prepress “hacking” tool like PDF ToolBox? You said it yourself, that’s what you needed before discovering Publisher, be it in its earlier versions. But do tell me if your older and trusted PDF source files do or don’t work in your workflow with the new Publisher version using passthrough. Of course, I could be missing the point entirely: in which case, let’s walk away. I’m not paid by Affinity to engage with you. I just like to try and solve problems. Fair enough?
  8. @Tonda From Affinity 1.9 promotional material: "PDF passthrough (desktop only) It’s now possible to flag your imported PDFs for PDF passthrough. This ensures that the file will be a perfect representation of the original PDF when exporting, regardless of whether you have the embedded fonts installed or not." It’s designed to allow placed deliverables that match production criteria, not for helping in the hacking of an already delivered, PDF deliverable. As I said before: when these unfortunate and not ideal situations present themselves, opening the PDF in a program that can edit it correctly, would be the best option. Adobe Illustrator comes to mind, as does Affinity Designer. Of course, security can create issues and limitations, with the security put in place for a purpose. But as you say, perfectly crackable. As for typefaces and their font glyphs: these are always limited at time of PDF export to the bare-minimum for printer-publishers, in accordance with typeface licensing rules. The Passthrough method used by Affinity, should do just that: pass-through the original state of the placed PDF, at PDF export of the rest of your master Publisher document. Ergo: if you can’t hack the PDF the way you want it to be in Affinity Designer )or whatever program you choose), and have that become your placed artwork in your Publisher document, then one can’t expect Publisher to perform any magic tricks. Publisher is giving me a hard time right for very different reasons, but I know it’s limitations (and similar programs), regardless. Following my point of generating a Designer file that replaces the hacked PDF: you could then separate the logo elements (or other objects), and rasterise them here, instead. Sounds like you have a lot on your plate and a very demanding workflow with unexpected issues around every corner. Very stressful. Back in the day, PitStop was used in PrePress for essentially ripping apart and editing elements at the PrePress stage, but it wasn't a miracle-maker. Anyway, I think your answer is to adjust your workflow, so you have full control of the hacked PDF, before pushing through to Publisher. This would also allow you to control colour profiles. It might spare a few premature grey hairs, no? Regardless, good luck to you!
  9. @Tonda Forgive my ignorance: are you rasterising everything to prove a point? If not, why rasterise a pass-through PDF?
  10. @Ingmar Meissner I can’t test this as I’ve already rolled back to 1.8.6, but from a workflow perspective, I would class a PDF as a deliverable format. Even if you could edit your embedded PDF in previous versions, doesn’t mean you should. Keep your data native and live, otherwise issues can arise, even in the most stable versions of Adobe. If I was having to edit a PDF in an Adobe workflow, it would be an Illustrator file (previously generated from the PDF) embedded. With Affinity, that would mean opening the PDF in to Designer, and keeping it as a native Designer file, until export and a new final deliverable is created.
  11. @whitewolf7070 @Martin Diestelmann @Gaunilo Hopefully this is taken as friendly advice: got caught out after the 1.9.0 release, but only briefly, as I had backups. You always have to be prepared to do so, even with Adobe. I’ve got about three layers of backup in place. If you’re under client deadline scenarios, have at least one backup. Get that document, at least once a day, and duplicate and date stamp it. Then work on it. If a new version of software is released, put the version in the file name, so you can troubleshoot. You have to protect yourself from screw ups. The only later times in my career I’ve been caught out, are in instances where I’m working on contract, offsite, and an over-zealous studio “manager” deleted my files from the company server, as I was working on them, with an internal client sat next to me. From that day on, I learned another lesson: trust no-one but yourself. I worked locally, and then uploaded the finished files to the server, once work was complete for the day. Adobe screwed up like this many years ago, when they moved to Creative Suite. All sorts of craziness with incompatible files across versions. At least they introduced IDML for InDesign, eventually. That was sometimes a life saver. Regardless, you’ve got to cover your own back. Then you can relax, and get on with trying to enjoy your chosen career, without added unnecessary stress. If you’re on macOS, you should at least have time machine to roll back a version of your document? Maybe, an iCloud backup for active projects only? I got caught by the 1.9.0 update, but only lost a couple of hours work. Hope this helps. I’m experienced, but still get caught out from time to time. Cover your back for these annoying situations. They will happen, no matter the company behind the software, or hardware. Your clients will love you for it. They still won’t like the colour of something; the photo you chose for the double spread; or your insistence on using italics or obliques for emphasis in the copy of an article, but they won’t understand why you can’t carry on working, because you didn’t back yourself up, after a software release. I’m not enjoying the silence from Affinity, and they never acknowledged my first bug report of my same issue for 1.9.0, until after the 1.9.1 release. But hey, s##t happens. Look after yourselves; no-one else will. 👍
  12. UPDATE… I’ve screen recorded the very odd issue of zooming in and out and seeing the random cropping of each object. All original frames are the same dimensions. I’ve had to blur out the content, due to the client-sensitive nature of the project, but I hope you see what’s happening here. I've left the columns of the Resource Manager visible, so you can see "happy" status "OK". All three affinity for macOS apps running 1.9.1 macOS Big Sur 11.2.1 #Resource Manager affinity_1.9.1_-_linked_files_bug_v001.mov
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.