Jump to content

fde101

Members
  • Content Count

    3,801
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from blackkitt in Reordering pages / spreads   
    Maybe a "Move before/after page..." type of option could be added to the context menu as well?
  2. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from Alfred in Affinity Designer / anti-aliasing   
    I can see it, but just barely, and I don't think I would have caught it unless someone pointed it out.
    That said, I'm not 100% convinced this is anti-aliasing at fault.
    It might be some raggedness in how the curvature of the underlying shape is being processed.  Hard to be sure.
    Given that these are also being reviewed at 300% of their intended size, it could also be an artifact of the scaling algorithm in play rather than of the data actually exported.  There could be tiny but equally correct differences in the data that the Affinity products are putting out which the algorithm might be misinterpreting if it had been optimized for the output of other products.
  3. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from emmrecs01 in epub export   
    Hi, welcome to the forums!
    There are already a number of other threads where this has been discussed, and I recommend reading through those rather than continuing in a new one, as having numerous threads for the same topic only serves to fragment the discussion and make it harder to follow.
  4. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from MikeW in Affinity Designer / anti-aliasing   
    I can see it, but just barely, and I don't think I would have caught it unless someone pointed it out.
    That said, I'm not 100% convinced this is anti-aliasing at fault.
    It might be some raggedness in how the curvature of the underlying shape is being processed.  Hard to be sure.
    Given that these are also being reviewed at 300% of their intended size, it could also be an artifact of the scaling algorithm in play rather than of the data actually exported.  There could be tiny but equally correct differences in the data that the Affinity products are putting out which the algorithm might be misinterpreting if it had been optimized for the output of other products.
  5. Thanks
    fde101 got a reaction from R C-R in StudioLink doesn't work (macOS)   
    Most applications purchased outside of the app store are not sandboxed, though they can be, and in surveying my system (10.13) I see that some apps have a mix of some sandboxed processes and some that are not (Dropbox, FontBase and Chrome for example).
     
    To see which processes are sandboxed, open Activity Monitor and go to View -> Columns -> Sandbox to add a column to the process list which indicates whether or not each process is sandboxed.
  6. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from Alfred in Affinity Photo generally very unintuitive   
    There is if you are looking at the Layers panel, which shows the list of layers.
    That said, this doesn't duplicate the selection borders, but rather the selected object or the image within the pixel selection - if you are using the Move tool and drag the selected region immediately after performing that command, you are moving the duplicate rather than the original.
     
    Again, there IS feedback if you are looking at the Channels panel which contains a list of channels in the image.
    This is actually what you want in this case.  The "Spare Channel" is added at the end of the list in that panel, just below the "Pixel Selection" entry which represents the current pixel selection.
    To restore the selection, right-click the "Spare Channel" in the channel list and choose "Load to Pixel Selection".  You can also rename it there for easier reference if you want to keep more than one available.
     
    Neither one.  It is actually fairly well-designed overall (there are a few sticky points but neither of these is among them), but it does require taking the time to learn where things are and how they work.  There are a number of tutorial videos available to help with this: choose "Tutorial" from the "Help" menu to open to the page listing them in your web browser.
    In particular, the "Channels: Selections" video demonstrates exactly what you are trying to do:  https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/tutorials/photo/desktop/video/334283412/
     
    You are trying to paste an image, but into what?  There is nowhere for it to go if you don't have an open document.  This is normal and I believe most applications would behave that way?  Try File -> New From Clipboard.
     
    I'm convinced that they are awesome.  They help to separate large operations into distinct areas of the user interface that help to reduce clutter and allow focus on complex tasks which would otherwise be much more unwieldy if everything were kept together in one place.
     
    Guessing this must be a Windows thing?
    I have the version from the Mac App store, so updates work just like any other app from the store.
    Some of the betas use a process which I understand mimics the way the Affinity Store version works on the Mac - with those, it pops up and says there is an update available, and you can click a button and it downloads the update, then stupidly prompts again to install it and restart.
    The second prompt is kind of stupid as there is not really another choice (other than cancelling the whole thing), and using the app is blocked anyway until it is completed - the fact that I told it to being the process should be sufficient to have it finish the process as well...  that said, this particular complaint is not really specific to the Affinity products as I see the same pattern repeated across lots of apps on the Mac (which are not obtained from the app store, which handles updates from outside of the app itself).
     
    The parts that are worth defending, yes.  There are certainly some weak points, but the things you listed are a user training issue rather than any problem with the actual application or its design.
     
    That is likely to be true of ANY application which is designed primarily for professionals.  I have a bunch of digital audio workstations for working with audio: FL Studio, Tracktion Waveform, Logic Pro, Ableton Live, Cubase, Bitwig Studio, Studio One, Reason, Harrison Mixbus, ... - yet the one DAW that just about everyone considers to be the "professional" DAW that everyone should be using for audio work, Pro Tools, is one that I've largely decided I'm not going to bother with.  I tried it and determined that for me, it is a waste of effort to learn, offers nothing that I consider to be of value over the other DAWs, and I don't particularly like some of how the company markets the product and the like...  so I've largely ditched it and decided I'm never going back to it.
    This is not because the product is inherently bad, as is evidenced by the vast user base that is picking up on it - but it is not for me.
    Maybe the Affinity products are not for you, but if you struggle with things this basic and are not willing to take the time to review the documentation and tutorials, then there really isn't a product at this level of capability that you are likely to come to terms with, so you are seriously limiting yourself far to early in the process.
  7. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from Mark Ingram in Affinity Photo generally very unintuitive   
    Both the Layers panel and the Channels panel are visible by default in Affinity Photo.  If you don't see them then you hid them or took some other action which caused them to be hidden.
    You can show them again using the options under View -> Studio (Layers and Channels respectively).
  8. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from Mark Ingram in DESIGNER: Text Wrap is an absolute must-have   
    All of the Affinity products also include all of those tools in common.
  9. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from harrym in Why can't I set inches a default   
    To be clear, this is not an imperial vs. metric thing - documents created from imported images are defaulting to pixels (not to a metric unit), which is the most sensible measurement due to the fact that an image which has no inherent physical size of its own is being imported and there is nothing within it to suggest what the physical size or unit of dimension should be.
    If you have the ruler displayed, you can very quickly switch to inches or any other unit by right-clicking on the corner of the ruler and selecting the unit you are interested in:

     
    The DPI setting can be adjusted by going to Document -> Resize Document and making sure Resample is unchecked.  You can also change the units from there if you don't have the rulers displayed (or even if you do and need to access this to adjust the DPI anyway).
    Again, this will be accurate for at most one print size at a time.  As an image is likely to be printed in multiple sizes for multiple purposes, this is of questionable value to begin with.
  10. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from Alfred in Why can't I set inches a default   
    To be clear, this is not an imperial vs. metric thing - documents created from imported images are defaulting to pixels (not to a metric unit), which is the most sensible measurement due to the fact that an image which has no inherent physical size of its own is being imported and there is nothing within it to suggest what the physical size or unit of dimension should be.
    If you have the ruler displayed, you can very quickly switch to inches or any other unit by right-clicking on the corner of the ruler and selecting the unit you are interested in:

     
    The DPI setting can be adjusted by going to Document -> Resize Document and making sure Resample is unchecked.  You can also change the units from there if you don't have the rulers displayed (or even if you do and need to access this to adjust the DPI anyway).
    Again, this will be accurate for at most one print size at a time.  As an image is likely to be printed in multiple sizes for multiple purposes, this is of questionable value to begin with.
  11. Haha
    fde101 got a reaction from Joachim_L in Why can't I set inches a default   
    We can't even seem to count our votes accurately right now so I don't think the country as a whole is quite ready for this stage of enlightenment yet.  Sad in some ways, as the Metric system makes a lot more sense mathematically and technically, but for now I think we are stuck with Imperial - and even if we did decide to make that change, it would likely be a slow process.  Imperial measurement is quite entrenched here and people won't change this quickly.
  12. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from PaulEC in Footnotes/Endnotes   
    No, the thread should stay *visible* to benefit those new users.
    Locking a thread does not hide it - it just prevents new posts, and very few helpful posts have been added in the past several pages, with most of those simply being posts that repeat or point out material previously posted earlier in the thread.
  13. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from Petar Petrenko in Copying/Cloning Text Formatting (Peter-N)   
    Welcome to the Forum!
    I would suggest saving it as a character style in the Text Styles panel then applying that style to the new text.
  14. Haha
    fde101 got a reaction from Richs in Word count in Affinity Publisher   
    So...  what do you suggest?
     
    Maybe...
     
    Hmm, after reading that... maybe I missed my calling and I should go into marketing?
  15. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from Tick in Color Correction with X-Rite Colorchecker Passport   
    In principle, this...
     
    in practice, this, except it would be even nicer if said other application did #2 instead of (or in addition to) #1
  16. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from LaraJ in Feature Request: Interactive PDF   
  17. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from Alfred in Wrong layer concept for an layout application   
    Look it up in a dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/professional
     
    You are a professional at something if that thing is your profession.
    Thus, professional means you earn a living from it.
     
    The application of the word to describe the quality or functionality of some piece of software has always been something of a misnomer and thus meaningless in and of itself.  It is a buzzword with no specific interpretation when used in this context.
    You could say that software is professional meaning that you earn a living by using that software, but then for a hobbyist using that same software to do personal projects it is not professional.  You could say that software is professional because the people writing it earn a living from selling it, but then to anyone other than the people involved in its development it is not professional.
    So no, I don't think "professional" actually means anything specific when applied to software or a piece of equipment.
  18. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from NotMyFault in layer lock, layer protection, image layers, let the user choice   
    Image layers and pixel layers are fundamentally different and each offers behavioral advantages in different situations.  Image layers represent images which are embedded or linked from outside sources: they cannot be directly edited because they may not exist in a "native" Affinity format; for example it might be stored in a compressed format and editing it would cause repeated data loss; it might not even be raster (PDF content could become an image layer for example even if that PDF is fully vector).
    Image layers are in effect vector objects which are decorated with an image fill - note that not all image layers are even raster.
    In Designer and Publisher you can create "linked" image layers which keep the content outside of the Affinity document.  If a large image is reused across multiple documents this can help to save disk space; it also means that if the image is modified externally then the change is automatically reflected across those documents which link to it.  Image layers may have a different color profile than the rest of the Affinity file which can have advantages in certain publishing scenarios.
    Pixel layers represent directly editable grids of pixels that you can freely edit.  These are the "native" raster objects within an Affinity document.  They are always embedded (never linked) and it should always be possible to modify them within a document without losing quality due to compression or other such details.  Pixel layers generally follow the resolution and color space of the Affinity document which contains them.
  19. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from d_jan in Footnotes/Endnotes   
    No, the thread should stay *visible* to benefit those new users.
    Locking a thread does not hide it - it just prevents new posts, and very few helpful posts have been added in the past several pages, with most of those simply being posts that repeat or point out material previously posted earlier in the thread.
  20. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from angelhdz12 in Scripting   
    The obvious limitation of this approach is that the second shadow will include a shadow of the first shadow.
    If you want two shadows that are cast in different directions (to reflect two light sources at different angles) this approach won't really work for that.
  21. Thanks
    fde101 reacted to big smile in Feedback on new "Select Same" & "Select Object" tools   
    Oh, yeah, it's not a request for that. That's a valid point and sorry for not being clear!
     
    I disagree. While switching to Designer persona indeed make this possible, it adds an extra step which when doing hundreds of pages lengthens the process. Plus, I've found switching to personas not always to be straight forward. Sometimes they switch instantly. Other times it takes several seconds for the switch to occur. And that adds a random factor which makes writing automation processes harder and more error prone. 
  22. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from walt.farrell in Affinity Photo Customer Beta (1.9.0.215 - RC2)   
    Ok, so here is my take on a menu reorganization for Affinity Photo.  I did change my mind about some of those options going into the Window menu...
    It might not be quite perfect, I may not have gotten the keyboard shortcuts correct, and I am not showing some of the menus/submenus that I am not changing.
    This is based on the 1.9 betas and is not intended to add or remove items (though some are renamed and many are in different menus).  I removed the "..." from a number of items that should not have them (the "..." should only be present when a command requires more information to proceed - "New Astrophotography Stack" for example does not, nor does "About Affinity Photo" whose entire purpose is to display information - no additional information is requested by that command...)
    There are many ways to do this, so take this as one suggestion, not the only one.  Also, I did this as an exercise and possibly to open up discussion - it is not necessarily a feature request in its own right.
















  23. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from Andy Somerfield in Affinity Photo Customer Beta (1.9.0.215 - RC2)   
    correct
  24. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from Boldlinedesign in Affinity Designer Customer Beta (1.9.0.20 - RC1)   
    Explained here: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/publisher/studiolink/
     
    The way I'm reading it, the intent of "StudioLink" is to allow access to photo and illustration tools from within a Publisher project - in other words, you are designing a publication (what Publisher itself is intended for) and need to create or manipulate vector artwork, so you can switch to the Designer persona within Publisher to work with vector artwork that is being used inside of a document that is still basically within the realm of what Publisher is ultimately designed for.
    I don't see any indication that it was ever intended to replace using Photo separately for working with a photo as the end product  or using Designer separately for creating vector artwork as the end product.  If you are creating an illustration as the end product in its own right, it would still be best to do that in Designer rather than in Publisher - but if you are creating a book or similar product and need to create an illustration to use within the book you are working on, that is what StudioLink is for, and for that it is great.
     
    The current Export Preview feature is really optimized for standalone art pieces and does not seem to be particularly optimal for a publication.  While adding it to Publisher would not be unwelcome, I don't believe it would be particularly helpful for the use cases that Publisher is intended for.  I think a better option for Publisher would be to add a separate persona for prepress setup and similar tasks such as color separations and imposition and that a more complete preview function should be included as part of that persona.  Yes, Publisher would benefit from an export preview, but to really be useful for its intended use cases it needs something a bit more sophisticated than what has been added to Photo and Designer in this round of betas.
  25. Like
    fde101 got a reaction from walt.farrell in Affinity Designer Customer Beta (1.9.0.20 - RC1)   
    Explained here: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/publisher/studiolink/
     
    The way I'm reading it, the intent of "StudioLink" is to allow access to photo and illustration tools from within a Publisher project - in other words, you are designing a publication (what Publisher itself is intended for) and need to create or manipulate vector artwork, so you can switch to the Designer persona within Publisher to work with vector artwork that is being used inside of a document that is still basically within the realm of what Publisher is ultimately designed for.
    I don't see any indication that it was ever intended to replace using Photo separately for working with a photo as the end product  or using Designer separately for creating vector artwork as the end product.  If you are creating an illustration as the end product in its own right, it would still be best to do that in Designer rather than in Publisher - but if you are creating a book or similar product and need to create an illustration to use within the book you are working on, that is what StudioLink is for, and for that it is great.
     
    The current Export Preview feature is really optimized for standalone art pieces and does not seem to be particularly optimal for a publication.  While adding it to Publisher would not be unwelcome, I don't believe it would be particularly helpful for the use cases that Publisher is intended for.  I think a better option for Publisher would be to add a separate persona for prepress setup and similar tasks such as color separations and imposition and that a more complete preview function should be included as part of that persona.  Yes, Publisher would benefit from an export preview, but to really be useful for its intended use cases it needs something a bit more sophisticated than what has been added to Photo and Designer in this round of betas.
×
×
  • 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.