thomaso

3 is enough 😉

Reply. Hi @xcool233, welcome to the Affinity forums! "Index" may have various meanings. In APub you can colourize an index for a document in the text style(s) assigned for the index creation. None of the Affinity apps supports an indexed colour space (yet). Though the Swatches Panel allows to create a colour palette of a custom number of swatches from an image and certain workflows let us limit (merge) the colours of a document visually, the Affinity documents can't be set to indexed colour mode and also Affinity is limited in its export skills for indexed (paletted) colours with the file type .gif.

• To add a Picture Frame select the "Picture Frame Rectangle Tool" in the "Tools" panel and draw the object by click-dragging on the desired page. (-> help) • To Save and Close select the commands in the "File" menu, named "Save" and "Close". (-> help) • To save a custom perspective setting as design guide in Affinity choose the option "Create Preset" in the "Grid and Axis Manager" window. (-> help) • To achieve the wanted results "without losing perspective" stay focused on your goal.

What do you mean if Bruce's ungrouping hint does not answer your question? Don't stand-alone adjustments always pass-through, regardless of their blend mode?

To get rid of the override (+) you either need to define its parameters in the paragraph style definition or simply choose the "Clear…" option before updating the style.

If Drop Caps aren't listed in the style's summary that may indicate that Drop Caps are assigned already to the parent style (-> "Based on: Article Text"). The summary lists only those parameters behind its + symbol that differ from a parent ('based on') style. "Character fill" is simply the summery label for "Text fill" colour.

Ah, I haven't noticed that before: There the dimensions with bleed change the orientation 😳 … and: only for mm, not for inch. 🦄 This seems to proof that one can't trust their data or text. Me too. Their printer may simply rotate the input for output as wanted, without involving clients at all. In my impression the requirements regarding "portrait" were written without the required knowledge for writing these requirements.

How would the binding edge be defined this way? How would the system know that landscape layouts rotated to portrait orientation need to get bound at the short egde? @pawlt, does the website request an orientation decision for landscape when uploading a PDF for print? The various hints given by lulu are quite ambiguous and seem to conflict with each other. For instance the hint to "adjust the page size accordingly" "when creating the PDF": [AFAIK there is no way in any of their listed/recommended apps for PDF creation which allows to "adjust the page size" during export, nor to rotate on export.] Also their requirement to set "portrait" but still have "the width wider than the height" sounds paradox to me. [AFAIK if width is wider than height it is NOT portrait, assuming a standard for dimensions with width as the first and height as second parameter, as they use them self in their layout page definition]. If you have no chance to explicitly define landscape somewhere in the upload /submitting area you possibly may try to contact them or other users via their blog. [unfortunately the newest user post appears to be 3 years old]

If you place into Picture Frames you can choose a scaling method + position (anchor) for every frame, before and/or after placing a resource. If you don't place into Picture Frames then you can activate the snapping options to get the page centre indicated for the placement cursor.

Hi @pawlt, welcome to the Affinity Forums! This use of the term "portrait" in lulu's description is indeed misleading. But fortunately they offer template documents that clarify this. See below the "A4 landscape" version (offered as .indd + .idml + .pdf), opened in APub V1. It shows the usual, common way of a landscape document where neither pages nor text are rotated. The way to the templates is shown in the first video under your posted link at 0:33 sec.

I mean the snapping skills generally exist in Affinity already – but "just" did not get an interface yet for full, useful, proper handling. (compare also the odd discussion in the thread linked in the post above)

Even tangent snapping with AD's Point Transform Tool doesn't help with such a 3-circle arrangement; its snapping requires several steps and is more likely to produce an approximate result only. point transform tool snapping.m4v BTW, this reminds me to a previous discussion (with no satisfying result either) …

There the bounding box is missing. You might have the View Tool (hand), not the Move Tool (arrow) selected.

Does it mean pressing shift has no effect when dragging an image layer's bounding box corner with the Move Tool? What is your setting in Preferences > Tools?

Oddly, there IS some tangent snapping with NodeTool + nodes to tangents only. – Nevertheless, this is not helpful for Mark's desired arrangement. node tangent snapping.m4v

Screenshot? With the image layer selected (Move Tool) you can drag a corner handle, depending on your app preferences you need to press shift while dragging to maintain aspect ratio.

Oh, Sorry everybody!!, I must have overseen this info It may appear unexpected but apparently V1 trail is still available for download and trial, even "If you haven't previously trialed the Affinity V1 apps, and don't have a license", as Dan recently pointed out in another thread:

If … 1. recent swatches get saved with a document as a feature, and 2. bitmap fills may be swatches as a feature, then -> 3. bitmap fills in "Recent" are a consequence of this features, aren't they? (… regardless of usefulness, desire or expectation;)

If you never purchased V1 then you can't download V1 because V2 | V1 are separate products and purchases. Workaround: You could try if the V1 demo is available for you in the Serif Store. If not, one of your club members can probably download the V1 demo through their account. You may be able to install this V1 demo on your Mac... although I'm not sure about the exact/strict legal situation for this particular case.

No issues to save here, too. Since I don't have the fonts "Bitter" and "Mr. Dafoe" you might check these fonts, e.g. by de-/re-activating them, choosing another font temporarily* and trying this fonts in a different app. (P.S.: The texts appear to be set to English while preflight reports a missing dictionary for "en-DE". If you fix this then APub's spell check may help to correct the various spelling issues (while it won't mark grammar issues ('Kunden dem Aufwand')). * Edit: switching a font for an entire document is easier if you work with saved text styles (Text Style panel).

The "Resource Manager" lists the colour space + profile for every resource. But note, in V1 is a known bug that may tell a wrong space by turning the reported space to the document's space for linked resources (also if the state gets switched from embedded to linked). – I don't know if this was fixed in V2 ?? In V1 this issue can result in a PNG that seems to be in colour space CMYK but with an RGB profile – which would technically be a conflict/contradition and thus may lead to disturbing confusion. – See below embedded vs. linked:

Not only the zoom level matters, especially with uploads to the forum. Also the file format (JPG vs. PNG), resolution (96 vs. 72 dpi) and colour profile (iMac vs. none) influence displayed details & quality and thus may turn a comparison to one between apples and oranges. Below a comparison of this 3 sizes, displayed with same dpi – note the different size ratio between the 3 files compared to your posts above: For forum uploads with the goal of comparison it is more useful to upload as ZIP because in the forum large sizes get displayed reduced to a max. width, JPGs get recompressed (85%) and their profiles get stripped, not to mention different display sizes on different monitor sizes / resolutions and browser window sizes. See also your previous threads with this subject:

Oddly, I'd expect at least grouping them first + then either "Rasterize To Mask" would work … … or "Mask to Below", but both don't.

In this case it works because the layer on top simulates the paper that affects the entire print result. It could also be achieved (and correspond to the printing process and its ink/layer hierarchy) if this "paper" object would be placed underneath all objects but then all objects would need to be set to multiply blend mode ... which needs more work to activate and accordingly to deactivate this simulation for the export of the print PDF. Blend mode 'multiply' can also be used to simulate 'overprint' (instead of 'knock-out'), in particular for spot colours that should overprint, as long Affinity lacks the 'overprint' display option. Actually a soft proof profile should work to 'preview' the paper colour but Affinity seems to lack the option "Simulate paper color" in its soft proof feature.

Apart from the white background: Is there also an easy (semi-automatic) way to add transparency to the plastic bag while maintaining its various small white spotlights? Manually brush painting appears rather tricky so I wonder if there is a way to achieve this transparency depending on its lightness + subtle gradients (gray: transparent / white: opaque).