KC Honie

Had Serif purchased the rights to Aperture they would have been set, but that ship has sailed...

I assume this question is for me... The raw module is extraordinarily useful and it is the equivalent of camera raw in photoshop. Adobe's camera raw is the RAW developer in both PS and LR. Neither PS nor Affinity Photo was designed for high volume production work. Lightroom, Capture One Pro, et al. were designed with the working photographer in mind. When I do a shoot and come back with several hundred or a thousand images, Affinity Photo never crosses my mind. I cull the images in Fast Raw Viewer and catalog and develop with Capture One Pro. If there are images that I want to manipulate further, then I use Affinity Photo. Edit: Serif has created a bit of a pickle for themselves. At this stage I really don't care how brilliant of a LR/C1P product they develop, I am now locked in to C1P with tens of thousands of RAW files developed with C1P, some utilizing styles that I have created and nearly all of them utilizing multiple layers (unless the edits are 100% compatible, then I might consider it). I also think Capture One's Raw converter is superior to both Adobe's and Serif's... I would love to see Capture One/Phase One and Serif collaborate but I suspect that is just a pipe dream...

I seriously doubt that Serif is going to produce the two products necessary to replace LR, 1) a DAM, and 2) a RAW Photo Developer. [Affinity Photo is a Photoshop competitor, not a Lightroom competitor] I ditched Adobe years ago for Affinity Products and Capture One Pro, and I am quite happy with with the transition. My digital asset library is 99.9% photos so managing them in C1P and Finder is not a major issue. If I had a much more comprehensive list of file types I was using then a proper DAM would be sorely needed. I use C1P to develop the majority of my RAW images and when I need to do more to photo or group of photos, then I will add Affinity Photo to the mix. There is absolutely no way that a photographer shooting hundreds or sometimes thousands of images during a shoot can use Affinity Photo as a primary RAW developer. (That is not what Affinity Photo was designed to do) So, Serif will have to create, 1) a lightroom clone, or 3) a DAM that works with most of the RAW Developers apps out there. Edit: More random thoughts... Serif is in a bit of a quandary. Photographers that are using the LR/PS pairing don't have a reasonable path out of the Adobe ecosystem. I would love for Serif to partner with Capture One to recreate the tight LR/PS linking and to create a proper DAM. (there by creating a reasonable path from Adobe) The challenge would be if Serif partnered with one of the lesser RAW Developer software companies. Pro's and high end enthusiasts are overwhelmingly going to use LR and C1P not the lessor products that I will not name here. The other option is to fork Raw Therapy or Darktable, but I am not sure how they would monetize that. I would love to be a fly on the wall during Serif's strategic planning and product development meetings I suspect what Serif is (or is it are) going to do is recognize that the photography segment is dramatically shrinking and will ignore both the DAM and Raw Developer spaces. *********************************** As an aside I made the switch to C1P several years ago and am very happy with C1P (there are things that I can do in it that I only dreamt about in LR). I now have tens of thousands of RAW images developed in C1P and there is absolutely no way at this point that I would switch Raw Developers. For me to switch to a Serif RAW Developer, it would have to be completely compatible with C1P and LR developed images... Serif's first product salvo should have been two products released simultaneously: Affinity Photo and Affinity Developer followed shortly with Affinity DAM, then Affinity Designer and Affinity Publisher, then they would not be backed into the corner that they are now in. But time will tell

One more yes vote...

That is what I was having to do, because the spread would not export to a usable size... But it was a corrupt file issue...

No worries, that is how we and Affinity products get better by airing our clean and even dirtier laundry.

All of this drama over a corrupted parent file... grrrrrr I recreated the document and it works as it should. All of the old is deleted and the new is being populated.... I appreciate everyones input!!!

All of this drama over a corrupted parent file... grrrrrr I recreated the document and it works as it should. All of the old is deleted and the new is being populated.... I appreciate everyones input!!!

The single pages exported to pdf from the spread were the wrong page dimension... That is why I did it the way that I did, It looks like my parent file may have been corrupted and is causing the problem. I am going to investigate and will report back with the finding...

I think that you may have actually solved the problem here I am investigating further. All of my child files stem from one parent, a proper two page spread. It is configured exactly like the ntitles.afpub you sent, which btw your file exports properly from my system. My parent and child files r0 through r6 all export incorrectly (they are configured exactly like your file). But the exported page dimensions are 12.000" x 12.250", instead of 11.875" x 12.000". I suspect I have a corrupted parent file. I will recreate the file and report back with the results...

Since I could not export from a spread, I had to layout the document as single pages, hence the need for RH and LH masters...

Now set two masters, a RH and LH you cannot set the bleeds differently for those masters...

Exactly, me as well. I have spent two weeks working with Blurbs tech support to get files that they can use. THEY CANNOT TWO PAGE SPREADS, ONLY SINGLE PAGES... VERY MADDENING. This whole issue stems from laying out two page spreads in AP and then exporting to a pdf as single page layouts. AP does not respect page dimension on export. You can still use a two page layout, you just cannot use the built in bleed function.

Yes, in that instance it works perfectly, because you did not start out with a two page spread... Now consider that you have to make RH and LH pages and that you cannot set the inner bleed to zero by master, So you have to abandon the concept of bleeds and size the pages accordingly.

The problem arises because I am developing templates for on demand print services than can only handle single page layouts. When you do a two page spread with top, bottom, and outside edges bleeds the file exports perfectly as a two page layout with the proper dimensions. But the moment that you export the document to a pdf file using All Pages then it adds the the outside bleed dimension to each page making the page size too large. The simplest fix would be a toggle to tell AP not to add the dimension. The next issue is if you are working with a single page document then the masters must reflect both RH and LH layouts including different margins and 0.00" inner bleed. There is no way to set different inner bleeds on the RH and LH pages. I realize this is specific to on demand print services but it is a real issue. So the example that I am presently working on: I designed a document with pages final print size to be 11.75" x 11.75" then added the 0.125" bleeds (top, bottom, and outside edge), the pdf file should export to page sizes of 11.875" x 12.000" (when selecting include bleeds on export). In actuality the file exports with a page size of 12.000" x 12.250". Of course the print service complains that the page dimensions are incorrect and if it auto-fixes the problem the page layout results are less than optimal. The work around: Set the page layout dimensions to the proper size including the correct bleed dimension, leave bleeds set to 0.000" or 0.000mm in document setup. If your final print page dimension is to be 11.750" x 11.750". Assuming bleeds of 0.125" (top, bottom, and outside edge), then the page size in AP needs to be set to 11.875" x 12.0", you are manually adding the bleeds of 0.125" (top, bottom, and outside edge). If you wish you can add guides to reflect where the bleeds are located. (I stopped doing this) Then the file exports with properly dimensioned pages for the on demand print services. I have stopped work on the templates until there is some clarification as to Serif's/Affinity's views this anomaly. I really want the templates to be in double truck layout so folks can actually see what their pages are going to look like. I can obviously do this by setting the bleeds to 0.00" and adjusting the page sizes according but that is not the right way to set up the templates... Ps. PM me if you want to talk voice...

The Problem: It doesn't matter whether I uses inches, millimeters, or point's the result is the same. If I work in a document, with no bleeds and the page dimensions set properly for the printer's needs, regardless of measurement type, the pdf export is dimensioned perfectly. When using bleeds the page dimensions grow both in width and height by multiples of the bleed dimension (as did your test file). It doesn't matter if you use Blurb, Presto Photo, or any of the other on demand book publishers, they all complain when you try to print an improperly dimensioned file. Their systems will try to fix it but the results are not always good. Adobe InDesign: I pulled out my old laptop and fired up InDesign (CS6) and it handles the dimensioning perfectly... The work around: Set the page layout dimensions to the proper size including the correct bleed dimension, leave bleeds set to 0.000" or 0.000mm in document setup. If your final print page dimension is to be 11.750" x 11.750". Assuming bleeds of 0.125" (top, bottom, and outside edge), then the page size in AP needs to be set to 11.875" x 12.0", you are manually adding the bleeds of 0.125" (top, bottom, and outside edge). If you wish you can add guides to reflect where the bleeds are located. (I stopped doing this) Then the file exports with properly dimensioned pages for the on demand print services. The intention: The intention was to create a set of free photo book templates to use with Blurb, Presto Photo, and eventually other services. The initial design was to do 20 page book templates with two page spreads and have quite a number of masters for people to choose from to modify the spreads or add new ones. None of the on demand print services can handle two page spreads, so the intention was to simply export the two page spread to single pdf pages using All Pages. It became quickly apparent the page sizes were wrong when exporting to pdf as single pages. InDesign respects proper page dimensioning. I have stopped work on the templates until there is some clarification as to whether Serif/Affinity views this as a problem and is going to fix it.

We are having a spirited conversation about exporting photobook layouts to pdf via AP. The pdf page dimensions are incorrect when exported when using bleeds particularly two page spreads with 0.00" inner bleed. Here is a link to the thread and a my last post there. My latest post: So we have hit on the crux of the problem... I would much rather do a two page spread rather than individual pages. But AP is not respecting page dimensions when when exporting to single pages via All Pages. I think we may have actually found a a bug in the pdf export routine... My single page afpub layout file dimensions, including bleed (all set to 0.000" and accounted for in actual page size) is 11.875" x 12.000", and the exported pdf is also 11.875" x 12.000". Your file and I appreciate the work you did looking at it... When exported to pdf via All Pages the pdf page dimensions are 12.000" x 12.250", and that size is rejected by the printer. AP is not respecting page sizing when exporting.

So we have hit on the crux of the problem... I would much rather do a two page spread rather than individual pages. But AP is not respecting page dimensions when when exporting to single pages via All Pages. I think we may have actually found a a bug in the pdf export routine... My single page afpub layout file dimensions, including bleed (all set to 0.000" and accounted for in actual page size) is 11.875" x 12.000", and the exported pdf is also 11.875" x 12.000". Your file and I appreciate the work you did looking at it... When exported to pdf via All Pages the pdf page dimensions are 12.000" x 12.250", and that size is rejected by the printer. AP is not respecting page sizing when exporting.

I did the a very similar layout test that you just did, if you will look at your (pdf) page width, you will see that it is 3mm wider than it should be... It adds that 3mm to the inner side when you export (as a pdf) to all pages. I would much prefer to layout as a double truck and export to single page pdfs. But when you export, the page dimensions are wrong and the print services reject them...

Unfortunately that makes no difference whatsoever. You still have to export the file to pdf as single pages (All Pages). When you do that AP adds a bleed to the binding side that is the same as the outside edge. This make the book the wrong size... None of the on demand printing services can handle a facing page spread. So the only way to really handle photo books designed for these services is to use single pages set to the document size including the bleed area. I stopped using guides to depict the bleed. The only way to make this work with bleeds is be able to set different bleeds on each master.

You might try going to "System Preferences / Security & Privacy / Privacy" and try giving AD access to files and folder or full disk access... Let us know if that helped...

Interesting, it might be a Catalina issue. Catalina certainly has its share of problems... iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017) Mac OS 10.15.4 | 4.2 GHz Quad Core Intel-Core i7 | 48 GB 2400 MHz DDR4 Ram | Radeon Pro 580 8 GB Affinity Designer 1.8.3 | Affinity Photo 1.8.3 | Affinity Publisher 1.8.3

The workaround is to add two blank pages to the front and one to the back then the document sizing is correct. That is after you delete the blank pages from the pdf. It is not actually a bug, but more of not yet keeping up with the changes in the way a lot of these types of documents are printed... Adobe does the same thing, the Blurb InDesign plug-in fixes it. PS. The workaround is usable but, unfortunately it still fails. When you export the spread to pdf using "All Pages" for single page printing AP adds the bleed back to the binding side and the page dimensions are then the wrong size. The only real way to do it where the print engines don't complain about incorrect page dimensions is to set the bleeds to 0" and set the document size to include the bleed dimensions and then set guides where the bleeds should be. This method works great, but the templates are unfortunately non standard. I don't know that this is a bug, but it is certainly bad behavior to add the bleed back where it doesn't belong. PSS. I am attaching two work in process files (cover and inner pages) that work with Blurb for a 12x12 photobook. All of this drama is because the on demand printers do not conform to printing standards!!! (Although I would really like AP to be flexible enough to handle those issues more gracefully) When you add pages you need to add both a left and right back to back to retain the correct formatting. Every master page has a LH and RH page, with the margins and page number set up properly. Let me know what you think and please feel free to modify and reupload. I am sending them as simply afpub documents, not templates. These file are provides as is with no warranty expressed or implied, use at your own risk. Blurb 12x12 Hardcover single no bleed r4.afpub Blurb 12x12 Photobook cover.afpub

The problem is your first and last page are still sized incorrectly. Because it applies the bleeds to the single page rather than the spread. I guess that you could add two additional dummy pages front and rear and then delete the dummies from the all pages pdf export. Once again it is a work around I will have to see if I can get the page numbers to work out correctly. None, that I am aware of, of the on demand print services can handle spreads... I guess the point is the world of print is changing dramatically, it would be nice for Affinity to support some of those changes. Blurb handles these issues with an InDesign plug-in that sizes everything correctly.

Here you go... The screenshot is much more readable than on either of my monitors, grrrrrr...