nwhit

Interesting! I just opened the ID X3 PDF in ADesigner and see what you mean on how they are doing it. Interesting! Does the job, so I can't argue with how they do it too much!

Very much appreciate the explanation. And I understand that the many, many issues facing Serif/Affinity in making their apps as competitive and as "pro" as possible are very, very challenging, especially given their highly reduced revenue stream/business model. To once again clarify, my only point in this thread is that in my opinion this is a needed "feature"/capability for many pros who are used to using this technique and need to continue to do this, so I am hopeful that Affinity can solve this issue, as well as the many others it faces. But again, thank you for the clearer explanation. Doesn't solve the issue but certainly interesting to know.

Perhaps what I said did not translate correctly. There were MANY missing technologies when I started converting print shops, newspapers, universities, ad agencies, etc. in the early days. But when opacity and drop shadows eventually evolved and improved, it made things easier/faster/better/affordable. And the evolution of the PDF standard was also a great help. Just did an ID CS5 export to PDF X3. At maximum magnification in Acrobat Pro and Preview, I am not seeing any pixelation of the type. Perhaps I did something wrong. Perhaps it is there and my old eyes can't see it. But based on this test, it is much better (and perfectly acceptable to clients) as opposed to what I get from Publisher X3 output. Why? I have no idea. I'll leave that to the coders and students of the science. But as a designer, we need to put out product for clients and I simply can't see eliminating the use of transparency/drop shadows over text for those hard-copy printing clients. Not when I seem to be able to (still) get acceptable results using ID. Or at least it appears to okay. I'm not trying to argue technology, historical dates, science, licensing, proprietary technologies, etc. We as a firm, and the many other firms I set up over the years, have used these design styles for an awful lot of work, whether that's 10 or a thousand. I seemingly can still output PDF X3 from ID CS5 and get acceptable text rendering results for posters and other printed materials. It appears, based on this thread, that perhaps Publisher may not have that ability. Fine. As I said, I love Publisher and will use it for web work. Just wish it weren't so. And please, I'm not trying to start an argument. Nor am I challenging your knowledge of the subject. You obviously understand the underlying technologies much better than I ever wanted to. I'm passing along my needs and my experience using ID CS5. which appears to work acceptably -- unless I'm not seeing something correctly. Most importantly, I'm just passing along my requirements for doing everyday client work. While there is a lot less actual printed materials work being done today (I have friends in the printing business and others who are now out of it due to the downturn), there is still the occasional need, so need a method to keep doing these things. And I sincerely thank you and others for your help on this and several other issues here on the various Affinity forums. Always try to learn. And always try to understand. Some things I have to simply accept since I don't have the time to relearn too many things. Right now, for example, I'm really fighting the issue with Affinity apps where you cannot save/name the "Studio" setup or workspace. I and others are struggling with betas that crash, mess up, etc. and the workspace setup is lost. And with the new Studio Link, it's even more disastrous if you've taken time to set up each Persona to your working style. Why can't we save workspaces? I have no idea. All I know is that many apps such as FCPX are based on the ability to set up multiple workspaces for different workflows. Seems like it is doable, but I would not and cannot argue the technology involved. Just something many of us need to make Affinity apps really usable on a day-to-day basis. Again, I apologize if I have seemed argumentative. Didn't mean it that way at all. I want Affinity to succeed and I appreciate you sharing your knowledge. sample text under graphics - X3 output - ps.pdf

Perhaps not simple (improper word choice), but it was resolved many, many years ago. Over the years, my firm has done thousands and thousands of drop shadows and transparencies over text ever since that capability was first introduced way back when (I go all the way back to PageMaker v1 and the intro of the very first laser printer). I'm not trying to trivialize the amount of work it has taken Serif to get where they are, but to move forward on the premise that we as designers cannot use transparency or drop shadows over text is not a reasonable offer. Simply far too restrictive for most client's print projects. But as I said, I love Publisher and look forward to using it for RGB web work. And I am hoping that they can resolve this issue so that we can then use it for cmyk print output.

From looking at the workaround, it then appears that there is no way possible to have a drop shadow or transparency on top of text. Is that correct? And can I also assume that even if the graphic with a drop shadow or transparency over text were created in AD or APh and imported into APub, it still would not work with a cmyk-X3 export? Imported/placed in any format???? Eliminating drop shadows and transparency over text is a VERY design-limiting issue. Over the years, we've simply become very spoiled using these techniques over and over without issue. I just hope Serif can resolve this issue.

I think I understand now. The Picture Frame must be the exact size of the graphic element and cannot include anything transparent. Thus drop shadows have to be manually created and added in a masking Picture Frame that does not intersect underlying text. While I now understand how you did this, I can also see that this is a HUGE PITA. I'm thinking that until Serif can solve this issue, my production company will have to continue to use our old CS5 ID for anything requiring CMYK-X3 output for a print shop/print job. Just way too much to be concerned about when creating something if we're suddenly back to the old days of difficult transparency and drop shadows (yes, I remember those days!). I've been really liking Publisher throughout the beta process and have been using it to produce several web pdf publications, but this issue really spells trouble for doing any print shop cmyk work. Just far too easy for someone to forget about the problem and how to get around it, plus the extra time and cost to the client to watch for and fix the issues in a publication. Yes, a designer can work around the problem, but with extra time and cost to the client, plus the chance of problems. Never would have expected something so simple to be "missing" in Publisher, so I am very saddened about having to go back to ID for some of our work. Hopefully one of the mods can assure us that this will be fixed/upgraded soon.

Yes, the current beta (146) for 1.7.2 is noticeably faster for many things on certain computers.

Attached. sample text under graphics - upload.afpub

In playing with this, I guess I'm not understanding how to overcome this issue. I tried putting both a APh TIFF and the actual APh graphic into a Picture frame and still get the rasterization of the Artistic text around/under the graphic element when exporting with X-3. Thus I guess I am missing something important. In all the beta testing on Publisher, I never came across this since I had not tried overlaying a graphic item over text, but this is a big deal for a lot of work on print shop output work for clients. Hopefully there is a simple, satisfactory workaround. I also just tried the same thing in ID CS5 exporting with X3 and it does not raster the nearby areas of text. Sample of APub beta 422 pdf-X3 output. sample text under graphics - X3 output.pdf

Really do need this!

My Studio setup in Publisher just "disappeared" for no understandable reason -- lost 3 nested panels for some strange reason and the only way to get them back was to Reset Studio which destroyed about 15 minutes of arranging work. I agree -- this seems like a VERY simple request to be able to save/name favourite layouts.

In your sample, is the key to put graphics into a picture frame when overlaying text?

I’m also running ID and PS on High Sierra without serious issues. Get an “unexpected quit” whenever I quit the apps but no effect from that and can’t think of anything else that doesn’t work. Use both every week for numerous things. I’ve also heard from people running them on Mojave but haven’t dared try that yet. Plus I keep a VM of Sierra in order to use a couple critical apps that stopped working with High Sierra. In that VM, the adobe CS apps also work pretty well. Might be a tish slower but not enough to cause a problem.

Interesting! I looked at the other docs I have created in APub and several had the Iso grid turned on. I know I never did that, so not sure how that happens. I also checked when creating a new doc if it was a preset but the new docs created don't have Iso turned on. What would have caused that to be turned on in a doc like the one I sent you?

I wasn't aware that there was an isometric grid in the document. Completely unaware of that feature until now, so not sure at all how it might have gotten there! When the doc was created, never knew of nor set that so not sure how it came to be turned on. Strange! Need to go back and check all other docs created with APub to be sure it's not on!