Jump to content

Hangman

Members
  • Posts

    833
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    A Galaxy Far Far Away

Recent Profile Visitors

1,993 profile views
  1. @Yves POUJOL, Merci d'avoir clarifié votre question initiale, cela a beaucoup plus de sens maintenant… Vous avez trois étapes principales de netteté du flux de travail, la netteté de capture, la netteté créative et la netteté de sortie et vous devez également tenir compte de ce pour quoi vous nettoyez réellement, c'est-à-dire à l'écran uniquement, effet créatif ou impression… Plutôt que d'essayer d'expliquer la netteté, il existe de nombreux excellents articles et vidéos disponibles qui expliquent les concepts bien mieux que je ne le pourrais jamais. J'ai inclus quelques liens ci-dessous… Les trois vidéos de Robin Whalley sont excellentes car il parle spécifiquement de la netteté passe-haut, du masque flou et du raffinement des détails, également connu sous le nom de Capture Sharpening (dans le Develop Persona of Affinity Photo)… Cela vaut également la peine de regarder les deux vidéos Capture One, car même s'il s'agit d'un logiciel différent et qu'il s'agit de développement ou d'images RAW, les concepts sont les mêmes. La vidéo Capture One "Three Stage Sharpening" de David Grover parle de la correction de la diffraction (5 premières minutes) qui, pour autant que je sache, n'est pas quelque chose qu'Affinity Photo peut actuellement faire, mais cela vaut toujours la peine d'être compris… la section suivante sur la netteté, est dans effet identique à l'utilisation d'un masque flou dans Affinity Photo et ceci est suivi d'une discussion sur la netteté de sortie… La vidéo "Outils de clarté, de structure et de netteté" Capture One de Paul Reiffer se concentre sur l'utilisation de la clarté et de la structure et fournit une excellente explication de la façon dont les deux affectent réellement une image. Il parle également de la netteté dans Capture One, qui, comme mentionné, est l'équivalent de Capture One de l'utilisation d'un masque flou dans Affinity Photo… J'ai également inclus un lien vers le didacticiel vidéo de Serif sur Clarity… Quoi qu'il en soit, j'espère que certains de ces liens vous seront utiles... https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-sharpening.htm https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/unsharp-mask.htm https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/local-contrast-enhancement.htm https://pixelsandwanderlust.com/the-difference-between-clarity-sharpness-and-contrast-sliders/ Le filtre masque flou Le filtre passe haut Raffinement des détails Affûtage en trois étapes Outils de clarté, de structure et d'affûtage Filtre de clarté dans Affinity Photo https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/tutorials/photo/desktop/video/334269447/ @Yves POUJOL, Thank you for clarifying your original question, that makes a lot more sense now… You have three main workflow sharpening stages, Capture Sharpening, Creative Sharpening and Output Sharpening and you also need to consider what you are actually sharpening for, i.e., onscreen only, creative effect or print… Rather than trying to explain sharpening there are plenty of excellent articles and videos available that explain the concepts far better than I ever could. I’ve included a few links above… The three videos by Robin Whalley are great as he specifically talks about High Pass sharpening, Unsharp mask and Detail Refinement, also known as Capture Sharpening (in the Develop Persona of Affinity Photo)… It’s definitely worth watching the two Capture One videos as well because even though this is different software and is talking about the development or RAW images, the concepts are the same. The ‘Three Stage Sharpening’ Capture One video by David Grover talks about Diffraction Correction (first 5 minutes) which as far as I know isn’t something Affinity Photo can currently do but it’s still worth understanding… the next section on Sharpening, is in effect the same as using an Unsharp Mask in Affinity Photo and this is followed by a discussion on Output Sharpening… The ‘Clarity, Structure & Sharpening Tools’ Capture One video by Paul Reiffer focuses on using Clarity and Structure and provides an excellent explanation of how both actually affect an image. He also talks about Sharpening in Capture One, which as mentioned is Capture One’s equivalent of using an Unsharp Mask in Affinity Photo… I’ve also included a link to to Serif’s own video tutorial on Clarity… Anyway, I hope some of the links above are helpful…
  2. Hi Phil, You're very welcome... there are always numerous different ways to achive something and these forums are an invaluable source of information when you run into an issue and you'll usually find someone who's also experienced the same problem together with workable solutions...
  3. Hi @RIB Logically you'd need to create the characters as vector objects using beziér curves in Designer and then export to SVG... but as @Komatös says, it's not immediately clear what you are looking to achieve... You can't simply convert low resolution images to vectors...
  4. @DigitalStirling, This is a common problem and has to do with the way the PDF Reader software displays clipping paths as explained here back in 2019... and again here in 2021... For me the 'ghost line' is non printing so I'm pretty sure you won't see it on the finished printed business card but to be 100% sure check with the printing company to confirm this is 100% the case. Alternatively instead of using a clipping path (even though that is the logical and easiest way to achieve the logo in question), you could also place the text layer above the purple shape in the layers panel, select the two layers and use the Subtract Boolean which will subtract the text from the purple shape and subsequently the file will have no clipping path... You then won't see the ghost line on the PDF file either... PDF Exported from Designer where a Clipping Path is Used PDF Exported from Designer where a Clipping Path isn't Used GEM Window Cleaning Business Cards No Clipping Path.afdesign GEM Window Cleaning Business Cards_With Clipping Path.pdf GEM Window Cleaning Business Cards Boolean Subtract.pdf
  5. @Carlo58, Grazie per il link, l'unico problema per me sarebbe che è solo Windows... Ho trovato un'estensione di Chrome chiamata SimIntpr (riportata sotto) che funziona su Mac e Windows ed è abbastanza intelligente in quanto leggerà anche il sottotitoli (anche quelli generati automaticamente) direttamente da un video di YouTube e traducilo in varie lingue in tempo reale anche senza che i sottotitoli siano visibili, ma puoi anche visualizzare i sottotitoli se lo desideri. Ti consente anche di abbassare il volume della voce sorgente in modo da ascoltare solo il testo tradotto invece di dover ascoltare entrambi. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/simintpr-translate-speak/kjheadnejomnapknbjdficacmoppeege Ho appena testato un breve clip usando un video di Affinity con l'adorabile @James Ritson... Il mio italiano non è così eccezionale, ma forse puoi dirmi se ha senso per te? @Carlo58, Thank you for the link, the only issue for me would be that it is Windows only... I did find a Chrome Extension called SimIntpr (linked below) which works on Mac and Windows and is quite clever in that it will also read the subtitles (even the auto-generated ones) directly from a YouTube video and translate it to various languages in real-time even without the subtitles being visible, though you can also display the subtitles if you want to. It also allows you to turn the source voice volume down so you only hear the translated text rather than having to hear both. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/simintpr-translate-speak/kjheadnejomnapknbjdficacmoppeege I've just tested a short clip using an Affinity Video with the lovely @James Ritson... My Italian isn't so great but maybe you can let me know if it makes sense for you? Translation.mp4
  6. Un link al tutorial sarebbe molto gradito, non dovrebbero esserci problemi a postarlo nel forum...
  7. As @Old Bruce mentions, you have space to the left of the bottom most picture and the Wrap Style you've set is incorrect for what you're trying to achieve. I did the following: Remove all extraneous spaces from the start of each paragrapgh Remove Text Wrap settings, change Text Wrap Style Reset Text Wrap Offset Select Text and set First Line Indent in the Paragraph Panel Obviously tweak the offset settings to suit... First Line Indent.mp4
  8. Something odd is definitely going on, when I first created a 16px x 16px file using the exact same settings and saved the file was 1.4mb in size and now creating the exact same file again it’s only 7kb. I have both sitting in the same folder side by side showing massively different file sizes which makes no sense!
  9. In AD 1.10 creating an identical file from scratch is 1,393,111 bytes (1.4 MB on disk), in AD 1.73 the same blank file is 388,211 bytes (389 KB on disk). No idea why the balloon in size.
  10. Hi @lacerto, just to clarify a couple of things, does PDF (Press Quality) in Indesign not export PDF 1.4 files or has the standard changed with new releases of InDesign (I don't have access to InDesign so I can't check). I'm also assuming that you referring to PDF X-3:2002 rather than PDF X-3:2003 since I was of the impression the former exports PDF 1.3, the latter PDF 1.4 files? Just wanted to clarify supported features for each standard since there are subtle differences between PDF 1.3 and PDF 1.4 in terms of what is supported, not that this has any real impact with regards to the way the Affinity Apps are handling or rather appear to be incorrectly handling PDF Passthrough. The Affinity suite appears to experience conflicts between different PDF versions, including different PDF/X versions which seem to emenate from the implementation of PDF Passthrough. My assumption (rightly or wrongly) is that these conflicts shouldn't exist and while the PDF formats themselves appear to export correctly individually, i.e., when not combined within the same document, the indications are that PDF 1.3 and 1.4 (no PDF/X standard files) are not compatible with PDF/X-4 files when using PDF Passthrough and likewise there appear to be compatibility issues between PDF/X-4 and PDF/X-3:2003 in Affinity apps, Publisher highlights these conflicts. Is this PDF/X specific or an issue with Affinity App Passthrough? For example I can create a document (RGB or CMYK, it makes no difference) using both Spot and non Spot colour, both with Overprint set which when exported as individual PDF files from Affinity Designer or Publisher result in the correct output but when combined in a single document by placing the respective PDF files using PDF passthrough and then exporting to PDF using PDF 1.4 (No PDF/X standard), PDF/X-1a:2003, PDF/X-3:2003 and PDF/X-4) give differing results depending on which combination of PDF versions appear on the same PDF export... Individual PDF Exports Note how each PDF Export version exports the file correctly and shows the simulated Overprint in Acrobat Reader. This I 100% agree with, any print job has to be produced in conjuction with the company printing the job and to their specific requirments or you're asking for trouble. Individual Documents Above Combined in a Single Document Using PDF Passthrough Note here the conflict between the Left and Right images and how the PDF 1.4 file conflicts with the PDF/X-4 file in both cases and how the CMYK (non-spot) versions in the bottom row of each file conflct between versions and how the PDF/X-1a:2003 export fails to show any CMYK or Spot Colour simulated Overprint regardless of the PDF version. Then compare the image above with the same files exported while only showing one of the four placed PDF files and exported using the same four different PDF settings, the only difference here is the PDF 1.4 Export (No PDF/X) now shows the non-spot simulated colour Overprint but again the PDF/X-1a:2003 fails to exhibit the simulated Overprint when PDF Passthrough is applied despite the Overprint being shown for both Spot and Non-Spot colours when the file is exported without PDF Passthough as shown in the first image... Agreed... I've not experienced this, can you elaborate on the specific corruption you've experienced and what you mean by "the placed PDFs need to be produced in version lower or the same than the host document"? Attached are the PDF files used in the images above. I don't currently have access to Acrobat Pro so I'd be interested to see whether the simulations shown in Acrobat Reader actually reflect the images shown above when the separations are viewed in Acrobat Pro? Reading numerous posts dating back several years I get the impression that the Affinity App handling of PDF Passthrough is somewhat lacking, acknowleged by the Serif Team but yet to be fixed, I don't know if that is a fair assessment? Source PDF Files Circles CMYK X-4.pdfCircles CMYK X-3.pdfCircles CMYK X-1a.pdfCircles CMYK 1.4.pdf Combined PDF Files Circles PDF:X-4 Export.pdfCircles PDF:X-3 2003 Export.pdfCircles PDF:X-1a 2003 Export.pdfCircles PDF 1.4 Export.pdf Individually Exported PDF Files from a Combined Placed PDF Document Circles PDF:X-4 Only PT Export.pdfCircles PDF:X-3 2003 Only PT Export.pdfCircles PDF:X-1a 2003 Only PT Export.pdfCircles PDF 1.4 Only PT Export.pdf
  11. It makes me smile as this conversation has come up several times before in the forum with some users insisting that PDF/X-1a is still a standard widely used today (which I don't deny but that's not the point) poo pooing when I've suggested they should be using PDF/X-4 as @Dan C, @lacerto and @PixelEngineer have also suggested... As others have said in this thread, PDF/X-1a does not support transparency hence the issue here, simply placing the file into InDesign won't show the issue, it's all about how the print company you're using is then exporting the file from within InDesign. A quote from the PDF/X-4 specs... "The previous PDF/X variants do not support the features of more modern (beyond PDF 1.4) versions of PDF. By 2008, it was time to bring PDF/X up to date with current PDF specifications. PDF/X-4 is based on PDF 1.6, published in 2004. This specification added support for new features, including layers, JPEG2000, OpenType fonts, and 16-bit images. In addition, PDF/X-4 allows the use of transparency, a PDF 1.4 feature forbidden in PDF/X until PDF/X-4." As @lacerto also highlighted, the PDF file you uploaded is not a PDF/X-1a file but rather a PDF 1.7 file, so I believe his comments are correct... I also think this issue perhaps highlights some things Serif needs to do moving forwards to be taken seriously in the print space, i.e., proper professional print and colour management. When you have printers taking a client supplied PDF from Affinity software and then placing it into InDesign to output it then you know something is very wrong. If Serif can reach the point where they are taken as seriously as Adobe when it comes to professional print by both commercial printers and RIP manufacturers then I think they are on to a real winner and they will see a far bigger transition from Adobe to Serif increasing market share dramatically. I believe @PixelEngineer has partially quoted from a response made to a similar question that appears in the Adobe forums (please correct me if I'm wrong about that) but it's really worth seeing the reply to the question in full because it was made by Dov Isaacs, former Adobe Principal Scientist (April 30, 1990 - May 30, 2021) so I think it can be taken as read he knows what he's talking about and I agree with him 100%... This is what he had to say in 2017 in response to a question regarding the use of transparency where the print company had specified PDF/X-1a as the required PDF format after the user had created a very complex, "intricate 474 page book which included lots of art, texture and transparency"... "For reliable PDF print publishing workflows, PDF/X-4 is strongly recommended as the PDF subset standard to use. PDF/X-4 supports live transparency and ICC colour management. On the other hand, PDF/X-1a forces all transparency in your original content to be “flattened” into opaque objects and all colour to be converted into DeviceCMYK. The flattening process often results in quality degradation with flattening artifacts including stitching lines. Conversion to DeviceCMYK assumes that whoever directs you to convert to CMYK actually tells you which CMYK!!! US Web Coated SWOP? FOGRA? Which? If this isn't specified by the print service provider, expect colour “issues” when printing. Ironically, virtually all RIPs / DFEs (Digital Front Ends) sold over the last ten years support live transparency, colour management, and PDF/X-4. It is the fear and ignorance of many print service providers that causes them to either require or request PDF/X-1a. Luddites!! In fact, RIPs / DFEs that support PDF/X-4 will yield superior output with PDF/X-4 as opposed to PDF/X-1a generated from the same original content that had live transparency. The PDF file will generally be smaller and RIP faster as well! All that having been said, if you are not able or willing to find a print service provider who has entered the 21st Century, if you carefully prepare a PDF/X-1a file, you may get acceptable results if and only if the print service provider provides you with the information as to (1) what the CMYK colour space they use is and (2) what the resolution is that they print at. Flattening should be done at a resolution close as possible to that of the rendering device (much of flattening prematurely converts text and/or vector objects into raster images if one or more of the overlapping objects in transparency are raster images). And optimise for quick web view is totally and utterly irrelevant for printing in any way! (Tends to confirm ignorance of whoever is providing these specifications!)"
  12. This isn't the case, vector objects are exported as editable layers when exported to EPS... Sadly, yes, this is the case... Back in 2015 Serif said the following regarding editable text when exporting EPS files... As far as I'm aware this hasn't changed since there is still no option to maintain editable text when exporting to an EPS file, however as far as I can tell VectorStyler does have the option to export to EPS with editable text but hopefully @Dazmondo77 can clarify if this is the case (being a VectorStyler user). My assumption (rightly or wrongly) is that the Vector Text option either keeps text ediable or converts it to curves (like Designer does by default with no option to change the behaviour). My question to the Serif team would be if VectorStyler can do it why can't Designer? Clearly both parties, (assuming a transfer of EPS files between different parties), would need to have the relevant font installed on their respective Mac or PC but hopefully @Dazmondo77 can provide a little more clarification regarding this issue?
×
×
  • 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.