Jump to content

PaoloT

Members
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PaoloT

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

571 profile views
  1. I see a better future for publishing apps, if they stop thinking only to printed page as the target. Thinking paper/PDF and websites at the same time would make them future-proof. CSS and HTML5 should already allow for complex page layouts on the web. I'm not totally sure InDesign is ready for this. Is its HTML output, from the more recent versions, be easily added to a website? Or is it still a lot of additional work needed? Serif could take the advantage, here, if it went straight to this direction. AfPub is a younger app, so maybe it's easy to make it more compatible with modern targets. Paolo
  2. While I agree that books are the ones I think will go through this transition losing less than the other formats, I wonder what is happening to magazines. I have tons of technology, music, travel, bricolage magazine in my home, but I'm slowly scanning them and getting rid of the least interesting from a design point of view. And I'm no longer purchasing any of them on paper. When looking at the Italian sales data, I see that only weekly and monthly magazines for traditional targets are still sold. Many others have migrated online. The design parts has gone lost. The beautiful experiment that is/was issuu, that tried to transfer high-quality design online, seems to be rather marginal. With the advancement of technology, and tablets being more and more a pervasive presence, do you thing well-designed magazines will become relevant again? Tangentially, I'm thinking to concept albums. For years, they were supplanted by single songs sold online. With the return to a need for intimacy (or being forced home), I see albums are returning. With magazines, it may happen something similar: from the whole concept on paper, we switched to single articles online; will the full magazine, to be read from the first to the last page, return relevant? Paolo
  3. Hi, This question is not strictly related to Affinity Publisher, but to the scope of the type of software it belongs, as a creative tool for actual work. While Designer and Photo have a clear target (any illustrator or photo editor, for any type of media), I find Publisher's target less clear. Layout work has been clear for a long time. You used publishing software to make layout for books, brochures, posters, industry report, newspapers, magazines. They were all printed out, starting from scanned or digitally transferred originals. Advertising has moved more and more toward web banners and social media ads. Industry reports, with smart working increasing and meetings only held virtually, are less and less relevant. Newspapers are moving online. Magazines are still read by an aged audience, but their format has long moved to the web. Books are still made, and probably will be for a long time. They will probably move to digital, but they will probably still need layout work. By gong around the forums dedicated to InDesign and AfPublisher, I've the impression that to be making their layout are aged people. Affinity Publisher is a tool for layout. Will we need it for long? I'm quite distressed by the possible perspectives, since I've grown loving books and layout tools. Publishing has been most of my life. What do you think? What is the future of publishing? How will we use the relevant tools in the near future? Paolo
  4. I've just done some other down-resizing (printed and handwritten text, black ink on white paper), and the Lanczos (non-separable) option was the most faithful to the original. I would say perfect. The correct option probably varies depending on the original image. This is the same with Photoshop, even if I find the default option in AfPhoto (Bilinear) the one working the worse with my materials. Paolo
  5. If you live in the world of corporations, you can't make a PC-based department change to a Mac-only set of applications. It would simply be a non-existent solution. Paolo
  6. The great thing, for us Apple users, would be Apple buying Serif and pumping a lot of resources in the development, as they have done with Final Cut and Logic. The bad thing, for us Apple users, would be that the Affinity series would only work on Apple hardware, and we would no longer be able to suggest an alternative multi-platform solution. Paolo
  7. I've tried the various options, and Lanczos has always given me the sharpest results when downsizing. Why am I experiencing this? Paolo
  8. I never asked something like that, and I doubt anybody is. I'm just asking the old installers to be left available for whomever wants to still use them on outdated systems. I know my company does it. Paolo
  9. I have the installation DVDs of CS6 no longer being read by my drive. They no longer offer download of the software, nor a replacement program for the DVDs (probably damaged by the excessive use of ink). Franky, this is one of those things that make users very disappointed, and not very likely to return to them. And it matches the general experience with their support for the latest couple decades. So, I feel like you, and my hopes in a different company with a different attitude are great. As for Adobe products being for professionals: has anybody seen their ads of the latest year? Is that professional quality? Paolo
  10. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and Good Quality Time with your dears! Holidays well deserved!
  11. The Google Doc Suite was accounted for about 16% of the "productivity suites" a couple years ago. LibreOffice for about 13%. These are niches, but very healthy niches. There are markets that are precluded to alternative software: employees using what the company installs in their computers; freelances depending on companies forcing them to use mainstream software; casual users cracking only the most famous piece of software to feel they are professional. The, there are freelances who can choose their tools, and they may be in very high numbers. A growing number. Small publishers of books and magazines; graphic artists delivering their content in AI, PSD or PDF format; self-publishers looking for something better than the raw output from Word; schools and university departments looking for high-quality, cost-effective solutions. Targeting a niche may be a viable solution to stay financially healthy. You don't have to overgrow, and maybe lose control of you company. You know your users, and can respond to their needs. It may be a golden niche, safe enough to be solid for a long time. Back to productivity software: I've not had to use MS software for decades, apart for the occasional need to check a document for compatibility, and open the mess someone sent me (and was still a mess in Word). I've been happy with independent software with good compatibility with MS file formats. And I'm now very happy with Apple software, giving me all the compatibility I need (nobody has asked me: this s@#t you sent me can't be opened, what the h#@k did you use for it?!?"). Standard file formats are a bless, when you don't have to share the original files, but only the finished product, that can be delivered in a standard interchange file format. PDF for printers, and IDML for translators and collaborators reusing your content seem good to me. Paolo
  12. I've been lucky, in the latest ten years (since I started using CS5.5 for heavy work, and then CS6). Table styles have been reliable for me, and they did their job when applying a different style sheet from a master document in the book (I usually have a version for the web with denser textures, one for the print with lighter or no one). I've not followed this type of issues on the Adobe forums, since I didn't need help on this. I can however report that tables and related styles can work fine. Paolo
  13. I'm a bit surprised by this statement. Part of my work in ID CS6 is made by huge tables running for more pages and thousand rows. Very often in two columns. Table/cell styles controlling each line. Everything works really fine, even if ID is slowed down (but with the current CPUs, or even the 2013 I'm using) this is not a major issue. Have they broken this feature, with CC? Paolo
  14. I find that reducing the size of a bitmap file with the Lanczos options produces results similar to Photoshop (CS6). At the same file size, Photoshop is still a bit sharper. With slightly bigger size than Photoshop, the result appears comparable. Non-separate makes the resulting image harder/sharper than the separate mode. Paolo
  15. I don't use interactive forms, but I was reading that the increase of Adobe sales during the lockdown was due to the wide use of interactive forms from remote workers. So, it seems it is a widespread use case. Paolo
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. 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.