davedesigner

A real world example of using global layers in a multi-page publication I work on. And why Global Layers essential. At different times of the year event related decoration content requires to be published. This content can be in completely different locations on every page of the document. Master pages just cannot cope with this. Using a *Global Layer* named for each event is a simple action of toggling the event content global layer on or off. Currently the only option is hunt down that content on a page by page, layer by layer basis.

A year later and this is still not fixed! The only solution for non vertically centred PDF is to ensure *only* crop marks. Then the PDF is vertically centred.

It's obvious that's not the market APub is aiming for, at least not for a long while. For the small print projects for me APub pretty much nails it "as is" (subject to teething issues) All the data driven publishing (for me) has long since gone to dynamic websites where I act as a front end developer (my main work). The cost of maintaining Quark yearly updates or a InDesign subscription is overkill for the small proportion of print work that comes in these days.

I'm very surprised at your negativity. APub is already more than sufficient for smaller print projects. Especially so when all your design vector/image work can be done in one place using StudioLink.

Nor me, I'm testing Affinity Publisher on a few live jobs and ultimately as a replacement to Quark. Hopefully this will get seen and nudge the app for the better.

Being old school I like to see that any bleeds are OK by outputting with tick marks. Having mainly worked with Quark over the years their PDFs are centred so never an issue or concern. As a comparison a QuarkXpress PDF (below) goes out of it way to awkwardly jam in the "document name" inside the tick marks so as to maintain a perfectly centred PDF. Which is probably a good thing on the whole. I hope AP can follow suit? Below is the above Quark PDF in the online PDF checker - all aligned and perfect.

It's very simple. If you output "any" PDF from AP with "full printers marks" ticked, the artwork is not vertically centred to the PDF as a whole. On the face of it it's all technically fine, but when I was uploading an aPub PDF to an online print supplier today that has a "visual PDF checker" you can plainly see it perceives a problem (below)... That being the artwork is not inside the cropmarks (above). Enough so to stop the job to work out what is going on. Then you've probably noticed that the usual PDF output from say QuarkXpress has the page (or Trimbox) that is perfectly centred both vertically and horizontally with in the PDF total outside boundary (or Artbox). Quark developers must have a reason for perfectly a centred Artbox/Trimbox... Why have Affinity decided to have a default non-centred PDF? When this has caused a potential worry when theres no need to be one.

This point I'm making is if the Bleedbox/Trimbox was set centrally with the Artbox as a default there's no risk (perceived on not) when adding full printers marks even when these marks are discarded by the workflow. I'm not going to test (the example below) on a live job and print just to find out there's a problem.

If you output crop mark and page information only on a smaller page say 50x50mm you'll notice the PDF margins higher at the top as an example. I'm sure the aPub PDF maybe technically correct with it's Cropbox, Artbox, Trimbox, Bleedbox. These do look good in Acrobat Pro.. However the service I was sending to suggests there was a problem (see earlier images) is disconnecting. And maybe it's no coincidence other mainstream apps all output a PDF with even margins on their default settings?

There's a big problem with outputting press ready PDF's for the unwary using Publisher. The PDF margins are not even with the setting "Output Printers Marks". As a result knocking the whole PDF out of kilter top and bottom. Meaning if you unwittingly output your artwork with "Output Printers Marks" and submit the job to an automated print service assuming "you're good to go" you may get an expensive mistake!!! The attached images illustrate the problem from a typical online print service the has a checker. The fix is only use "include crop marks" to produce an even margins around the PDF. QuarkXpress for example can include all marks and still maintain and even margin around.

Thanks that's better.

<tumbleweed> ...Aren't there any Print/Design Pro's out there that think the current dark pasteboard is a problem?

I was hoping that the last in the Affinity Trio "Publisher" had a true pasteboard (the area outside of the document) to behave in a similar fashion to other Page make-up Apps. I find that I frequently need to place things outside the document boundaries for re-use later or just storage for notes on the document. I'd like to setup guidelines that can outside placed (and be seen) outside the document boundary so bleed items can quickly "snap" them. Or a neat ideas would to just make the bleed "snap"? Here's an example of a typical QuarkXpress template I frequently re-use. See the off page bleed guides? Having a black surround is all very well for a slick looking app but we're here for work and need to see and use the outside space of a document. Is there a valid reason why the pasteboard must be hidden?

The logo (and not my example) does not use a 50% mid point unfortunately. I've had to hop everything over to Ai.

Looks like the only workaround for this is to export as SVG (eps still want's to rasterise some objects). Then take the SVG to Illustrator and export a PDF/EPS file from there. The trouble with that is SVG is RGB and is not CYMK yes? I need to export CMYK files for a logo which might be used at a multitude of formats from business cards to large format printing. test-shape.afdesign