thomaso

Since Affinity allows in a spread 2 pages only (and identical dimensions for all pages in a spread) it isn't helpful to use facing pages for the cover. Instead create a single page with the total dimensions (left + right page + spine width) and set the bleed as required. Use guides (ruler) or simple rectangle shapes as layers (locked) to mark the three areas during the layout process.

Did you keep the mouse button pressed continuously when a panel gets moved with the brush tool activated? Or did you release the mouse button + click again after hovering over a panel? If a tab gets moved unintentionally: Does the cursor display a brush icon (e.g. circle or crosshairs) or does it show the system arrow cursor? Do you mind to upload this video to the forum, too? Or, in case it shows private content, to take another one for public upload? If wanted, with cmd-shift-5 you can limit the video screenshot to a certain area, it could be sufficient to show the Tools Panel + a selected area of image + panel where the unintentional moving tab occurs.

Note that your thread got tagged in the meantime together with other threads (2019) by Serif as an issue for further investigation by the developers: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/search/&tags=afd-2424

Again you did not tell the JPG export settings while you compare JPG with PNG. And again the zoom levels / pixel dimensions are different, resulting in less details for the screenshot. And again, to me the JPG shows definitely more/better quality than the screenshot (png): not only regarding size/pixel dimension but mainly regarding contrast and halftones. Honestly, meanwhile I lost your concern and don't fully understand the entire comparison: Do you export from APh – or export from Preview? It could help for the forum discussion if you include parts of the app interface in your screenshots to make it easier to assign the correct app to the uploaded image details. Also, since you mention the appearance in APh: is the screenshot taken from the original file viewed in APh – or taken in Preview from another file? Below one common screenshot of your two pictures, displayed in Preview. – left: JPG | right: screenshot/PNG. – Do you agree that the left/jpg shows the better quality? If yes, what do you want to tell or ask? While I actually would expect quite identical quality in an export & a screenshot (if both get displayed in 100% size) I wonder what is causing the imho obvious, large quality loss in your screenshots, and why do they result in a different size/less details? Might your thread possibly concern profile issues in your system and applications? (though that would not explain the massively blurred, softened result in your screenshot from 9th November)

While the workflow described above in the steps 1-3 are rather basic features of Affinity (nothing to "worry about" or "hard work"), the additional hints of @NotMyFault and @firstdefence make me wonder whether the difficulty will be to achieve a fully seamless result with your seamless artwork for this irregular, curved transfer shape that appears to indicate a curved object. I understood your info… … that the artwork exists as a seamless pattern already, which "just" needs scaling & cropping to match the transfer shape. So just in case you want to adjust the created artwork to the curved / perspective shape: You can use AD or APh to bend/stretch/warp the pattern for its seamlessness at the shape edges. Warping vector: https://affinity.help/designer2/English.lproj/index.html?page=pages/ObjectControl/warp.html?title=Warping objects Perspective Filter: https://affinity.help/designer2/English.lproj/index.html?page=pages/Filters/filter_perspective.html?title=Live Perspective filter Perspective Tool (APh): https://affinity.help/photo2/English.lproj/index.html?page=pages/SizeTransform/perspective.html?title=Perspective When placing the image (regardless of the method as one resource layer for the image or via auto-multiplied pattern-creation with the Gradient/Fill Tool) the recently mentioned "pixel perfect" alignment would not harm but possibly is not relevant in your mentioned use for "printing ceramic transfers" which, as far I understand, will get baked/heated and thus might lose a "pixel perfect" attitude by expanding/shrinking during the entire process. If your "worry" rather concerns the entire process including print and tile production there are a few tutorials online, for instance https://www.instructables.com/DIY-Ceramic-Decals-From-Your-Laser-Printer/

1. Open the PDF with the Transfer Shape in Affinity. 2. Place the pattern image or Affinity document. (via either menu "File" > "Place" or via the "Place Image Tool") 3. In the Layers Panel drag either the placed image/document or the shape onto/inside the other layer to use the shape as mask for the pattern. For details in the Layers panel hierarchy & handling see also: Layer Clipping: https://affinity.help/publisher2/English.lproj/pages/Layers/layerClip.html Layer Drop Zones: https://affinity.help/publisher2/English.lproj/pages/Layers/layerDropZones.html

Sorry, I don't understand your question. If an article ends on a page without the need to turn the page it is of course no problem, compared to a situation where an article only starts at the bottom (for instance with "latin, latin, latin, f") and needs to turn the page to read the rest of the article ("english, english"). With other words: to me it is more important to keep all words of one article together, avoiding the need to make the eye jump to the next column, page or spread – while a little blank space at the bottom doesn't disturb much. With two font styles I had rather non-serif for English in mind because Latin as bold/semibold occurs darker anyway and thus the English text may appear lighter without serifs and make the switch more obvious (without the need to use a fully different font design). The conscious decision for the gender letters set in the style of English appears in particular odd to me because English doesn't use gender for most nouns (different to German for instance). So the gender is more a Latin rather than an English property, while the italic terms (adv, conj,) may match both languages.

While the mentioned "Bitmap Fill" offers to auto-fill with multiple 'copies' of a certain image to create a pattern, you can place an image file or Affinity document that contains the pattern already as an image resource, either clipped by the transfer shape (top) – or use the shape as cropping mask for the image (bottom). The difference gets set in the Layers panel by the layers position and hierarchy. For instance …

A "document" creation enables you to define various parameters – e.g. size/dimension, resolution, colour space/profile – before placing one or more photos to this specific setup. Note that you also can create a design entirely without the use of a photo but text with illustrated elements for instance. Thus APhoto isn't a photo editor only but includes features for various types of graphic design layouts. Another reason is the common file format with compatibility between the three Affinity apps which may contain multiple artboards (AD) or pages (APub) and still may get opened in APhoto, for instance to access specific APhoto features in an AD or APub document – and vice versa.

There are various threads about intense blue light with RAW, for instance…

Actually, if you wouldn't have asked I would just turn p. 127 without issues, without the idea of a disturbing blank space or a possibly missing text. If I understand right the screenshot doesn't show alternatives but just two different samples of same settings, right? Regarding p. 127, "requiro…" this solution appears to me more useful than a possible alternative with a widow / orphan issue. The blank gap doesn't disturb me because personally I rather focus on readability for such content. So far from my designer's view. From a readers view it feels more complex (but not necessarily more important): To me the last line is less relevant than the paragraphs (the eyes have to read across the entire page). On p. 217 the frequent last word "to" appears like a 'contextual widow' to me more disturbing than a typographical widow / orphan would do on an occasional page. (is a line break before a single "to" an option?) – If I literally 'hunt' for issues: Another irritation occurs to my eyes when searching a certain keyword, caused by the lengths of bold text per line (for conjugation / declination), sometimes even more than 1 line. Possibly I would prefer the first word only in bold as a clear visual emphasis … or/and a larger visual difference between the languages. (is serif & non-serif an option? or additional separator chars for conjugation & declination?) – And I would except the gender letters in italics like the word types.

If you would have just placed it as 'Image' or 'Document' resource without opening it (= accessing it as a 'Group' layer this way) you could now replace the vectorized version with a pixel version by just 1 click for all instances in this .afpub.

Perfekt, thank you!

Does it mean it is not directly related to an act of painting? If I use a brush with the mouse button pressed I am unable to activate any Panel or Panel's group tab. I need to release the mouse button first when hovering over a panel to activate or drag a panel or tab. Regardless of Panel or Panel's Tab, do you get a different cursor while hovering with a Brush Tool over an UI item (e.g. panel, toolbar, etc.) if the mouse button is not pressed? Or does a blue, transparent indicator for a possible new tab position appear if you drag a tab or panel? Below I am just dragging "Navigator" from its recent position right of "Stock", the blue rectangle indicates a possible new position. If I now release the mouse button I get the result in the second screenshot. – Can you reproduce this? BTW, does the issue concern a specific tool selection only and/or a specific persona in APhoto?

Could you upload a PDF where it works for you? While the hyperlink opens a new email window I don't get a subject text filled (V1, mac, Outlook).

While I still see the textured element as more artistic/creative than a technical gradient even in the small size, I rather wonder for what goal the (apparently) scanned watercolour illustration got vectorized at all: Even if printed in 3x3 metres for a school wall for instance, an upscaled, resampled raster image would appear more 'natural' (closer to watercolour) than the vectorized data with its hard-edged sub-shapes, visible already in the 10-15 cm size of @Pšenda's screenshot. (… while in an upscaled pixel image any hidden message could still get placed in a tiny font size;)

Alternatively to @Aammppaa's hint with the Contour Tool which will maintain an equal distance, – below a result with a copy of the green compound which got its nested larger ellipse and also the entire group manually scaled with Move Tool and the bounding box handles.

When I use a mouse (mac, V1) not only the mouse dragging speed matters but also a minimal lengths of a drawn line is fundamentally. A large stroke width gets achieved only over a long distance and with a very high dragging speed (a speed which doesn't allow to draw a certain shape). With same brush settings and "pressure" instead of "velocity" a Wacom Pen creates much more variance and at a reasonable low, usual drawing speed that also allows handwriting. Also when drawing with mouse the brush option > pressure curve matters a lot. Other than expected I get the most change in line width with the straight 45º setting, while both a concave or convex curve result in less variance. Thus, when drawing with the mouse, I prefer to set/edit the curve after drawing manually via "Stroke" > "Pressure". For more complex illustrations the mouse isn't by far a substitute for a pen, not because of the different handling/moving but because the extremely low effect of the pressure/velocity curve.

An easy way would be to create each swoosh with two ellipses of different sizes and positions + subtract the smaller from the larger. If Geometry > Subtract gets applied with the option key pressed you get a Compound Group with both ellipses editable as child layers.

Sure? It reminds me to two options when using expressions that may lead to different results if a rounded value is currently displayed in a field. One adds the expression to the displayed value the other deletes the value before typing the expression. Or with Gabe's words: If you wanted to use the internal value, you would have to delete what's in the box and type "*=2" or "*2".

@mimimia, this means you can reduce the .afpub and the exported .PDF file sizes massively by rasterizing those Group layers that contain the vectorized illustrations. When doing this you might consider to increase the document resolution first, e.g. to 300 dpi, to maintain the image quality in a resolution which would work for print, too. Since the elements have quite small dimensions a higher resolution wouldn't result in a remarkable larger file size towards your current 72 dpi but in a sharper contour. If wanted you then could convert the rasterized illustrations to layers of type "Image" which enables you to place the items linked resources. Finally you could replace each of them with instances of just a few linked image files. For colour variations you don't necessarily need to have the image files in different colours but could alternatively apply an adjustment layer (e.g. HSL, Recolour) to achieve a wanted colour for each element.

When using the slider for sizing the image snaps below 100% in steps of 10%, above in steps of 50%. You can avoid snapping by holding the option key while moving the slider. A more flexible way to adjust size and position is to select the image layer inside the Picture Frame, either by clicking it in the Layers panel or by double-click on the image (but not the centred symbol). This enables you to size the image with any of its handles and to move it with the Move cursor positioned anywhere on the image. With shift-double-click on the image inside the frame you get back to the Picture Frame selection (and its slider).

Could you also upload the exported PDF (10 MB). I can't open V2 but I am curious what elements do cause that size in particular if no images are used and nothing gets rasterized (as your export dialog says). For your .afpub size you could try this: Create a new document of same page size and colour & choose menu Document > Add Pages From File to import the entire affected afpub & Save As.

FWIW, in APub V1 / macOS the button "Add Preset" works in APub's Publisher persona: The new preset appears in the Adjustment Panel of APub's Photo persona.

It appears indeed strange that there is no "Choose Preset" button next to the "Add Preset" … but a "Merge" button, which not only is a quite different task but also seems to work with pixel layers only, doing just nothing if nested in a vector or group layer (even if the group contains pixel layers only) – while its function gets more weird if the adjustment is not nested: then "Merge" simply affects the first available pixel layer downwards in the layer hierarchy. @walt.farrell, in APub V1 the Add button exists for the APub persona. – Did it change in V2? I vague have a recent logged bug in mind for V2 and "Add preset" not reacting correctly, not sure about the app. – To access certain adjustments/settings you alternatively can use Assets in APub (though also for these exists a bug report for certain conditions/situations).