SrPx

That indeed seems totally color profile or calibration related. I am a bit in a rush now, couldn't read the complete thread (it is good that you do them detailed, it helps a lot more to catch the issue) but I read one of the last sentences, and definitely, uploading the files will always help, surely a lot. I'll read it fully some hours later. You can always use google drive, or the like, and make a temporary public link to thr file, if you are familiar to that....

The company has stated clearly already that is having no intentions in doing a Linux version, several times, and since long ago. Edit: Sorry, Alfred, didn't realize I cross-posted.

In several moments of the entire thread this has also been answered.... The prob is that in global numbers, that's really a small number compared to the mass of windows/mac users, at the moment of a business decision, this is all what matters. The mass of licenses of people that have photography as a hobby, or actual job, graphic designers for almost any field, and people interested in a publishing solution, is massive, in an extremely different scale to the niche of film industry, very high end content creators, rare talent. The average Joe or Jane isn't into that, and/or has not the right connections for that.

46..... but old soul, anyway.... Don't worry, you sound really young to me.... actually, younger.

Void.... That would not be loved by hardworking Krita , Inskcape, Scribus and Gimp's (lately made a huge update) generous authors. And no, I don't think they are -well in some very particular details they are even better than Adobe's- at Affinity level, but definitely not as far as some of these new linux users do think they are. I know those applications well, from many years of usage, at companies, not just some hobby stuff, they saved the day too many times, and in many aspects they are pretty near to high end. Blender is already there ( I use it constantly). These are not commercial Win/Mac apps that made a Linux version because in the film industry there were already a lot of UNIX and Linux machines in place, so it made sense, or because was easier due to its coding or app structure, or due to whatever... These are, instead, part of the pure soul of Linux, since almost the start. Most are pure GPL, is really crazy that they are not supported fully by the whole community, as not doing so, goes even against the main OS philosophy. And imo is a bit disrespectful with so many years of effort, to certain apps that are highly underrated by a certain portion of Linux users (a lot of new linux users, coming from Win/mac, a bunch of them ). Of course, the road ahead is hard, specially competing with the triple A commercial market. But that is the whole point of Linux, IMO. Is a choice for a way of doing things (pestering a company for not doing a whatever OS version is extremely far from original Linux elegant style, btw). Thing is, I have realized with Blender that is not impossible, and the price is HUGE. It is worth it.

Oh, in the old times, lossless (specially for the web, where IMO has been most massively used) was applied to what you see as a result (ie, if you'd flattened the full scene, preserving the same visual quality .I know what you mean, a vector is infinitely sharp, raster will pixelate at some zoom level...But I am referring to what is usually applied to compare between lossy raster image "exports" to those that don't introduce those artifacts ). Of course, most exports do loose editability and a bunch of features when they are not exported as the native file. Is also as I am speaking mostly in the sense we "raster people" typically handled the concept. For a lot of us, a raster export in a vector app was kind of less common (my usual workflow would be indeed a vector export, and raster exports in raster apps). Thus, the less common situation to be considered (today is not at all so, indeed, back in the day few people would use vectors to make 32x32 icons...today is quite common to do so for the sake of speed and workflows. Am a pixel pusher, a pixel artist. I can't stand that, lol..... ). Also quite a lot of this goes in the line that what most clients and companies did worry about, was the level of quality lost in JPEGs or GIF/PNG-8, exports again, mostly in web output.

Usually, the larger differences between palettized files, besides the more obvious one, which is , the exact number of colors (irfanview can tell you the exact number of colors of any png exported, or any other image (i key) , ie, 6.327 actual real colors in a PNG 24, etc.) , which is number one size factor in a PNG due to how its algos work, but another that people tend to not be aware of, is ...error diffusion. Is not an "error", is a dithering method usually called so. It might be working internally by default, even if there would not be any user controllable setting in an UI of any specific software application. It makes sense if in your test, you see smaller palettized PNGs (PNG-8) in AD than AP. APhoto is a photo/image editor, a raster image editor largely focused in photography editing, so, is logical if it is defaulting (I dunno, tho) to use error diffusion, which is a "casual" dithering mode that makes you harder to see any pattern at all (kindda random dithering). Other methods are patterned based, kind of mechanical patterns, easier to spot, of several types (usually lighter in memory size of the exported file) , but also, there's the possibility of a forced banding method (zero dithering), maybe is made default in AD, and that makes total sense, too. You will want your large flat ink color area of a vector design to not show ANY dithering at all. Banding might only happening in the lines, in a PMNG export from these designs, but there you wont notice until zooming crazily. The funny thing about this is that difference in size can be HUGE (between error diffusion, a uniform pattern, or pure banding), specially in big canvases files, between dithering types, and no dithering at all. The organized, uniform pattern types seem to be easier than error diffusion on getting smaller sizes to PNG algos, while the champion there is no dither at all. Also, MAYBE (my knowledge comes from some eons handling many other apps, not that I reached that level of granularity in tests with AD/AP, yet, other than constantly checking stuff is working) the AD 8 bit export is probably using by default limited palettes, eliminating colors that it does not need. This alone can mean a huge, huge difference in export size. Really, is very rare to see any issue these days in PNGs / JPGs exports...They are basically using standard libraries in each OS which a ton of apps do use, and these formats been around a while among us... they're polished as heck. Of course, there can be issues. There are surely issues indeed , like in every software. But we need to quickly discard things that might be happening due to factors quite far from being a software bug. (Again, you never know, though)

What makes me surprised is the png loss of quality mentioned by you, as PNG is indeed by definition, lossless, unless (well and there are some lossy filters, but you would need to use those on purpose, and not all exporters use those these days) one uses PNG-8 (extremely different to a PNG made in 8 bits) which is mostly like a gif, 256 colors limited. Other than that, a PNG24 (can have 16 million of colors) should show equally in every software, at least if color profiles were handled well. The "poor" quality comment about PNG, keeps not detailing in which way you do notice a poorer export. Is it in loss of detail ? the lines? That totally could be related to Medical Officer Bones comment. Just exporting it at low resolution, it is going to loose all the detail. Maybe your DrawPlus is exporting by default, or previous export, in higher res ? (been eons since last time I used Drawplus) We don't know if it is that, or it getting blurry, a color problem...Can you make a vector file of same size in AD, with a bunch of vector objects, same effects if possible, please, just random stuff that wont take more than 2 minutes in making, and export from AD the png, and the PDF vector file, then import as EPS in your other app, export again in PNG and PDF ? I mean, if you really want to solve this, if that is the purpose of the thread, I would be shockingly surprised if we all don't get to hunt the issue , pretty fast. And then you probably get to have a richer and easier workflow. Drawplus was and is a really good application, but AD plays in another league, much better. (it means also the transition of a nice lil app, a bit for more hobby usage, to a more pro solution. ) BTW, related to size.... things are sometimes more complex than one would think..... PNG compression algorithms are really good to make a large canvas of a vector file becoming really small. It does not do it at a quality loss cost, as would do a JPEG. The PNG algos, when detect large areas of a flat color, usual in a vector file, they can compress all that "same-color" area in a crazily great ratio. So, for starters, that does not surprise me at all. If anything, one could say that then AD is making a much better job in the export optimization. But, the size difference you are reporting in the PNG export between Drawplus and AD, together with the quality loss you are seeing, is telling me that almost is certain that the size, resolution of the file is being dramatically different, and then, you would not be comparing two apps' export functions, just how different is to export in small or large resolution. Maybe is some hidden setting in one of the two apps. Again, the 4 files upload (test files, unrelated to that actual project), I'm positive would lead us to immediately detect the problem. There are a ton of settings in a PDF export, specially in pro packages like these. Also, as we don't have access to your files, or, a sample fast-made file with a bunch of similar elements, then we don't know if you are adding raster effects, if you are rasterizing in export and you don't know it, etc, etc. IE, in the PDF it could be applying zip compression for images, but not n the other, or resampling all images to 100 dpi, and not in the other, or using PDF 1.4 in one, and a PDF/X in the other, ....

If it were only to make the ico file for the IE favicon (IE always giving probs, since...always) I'd just use XnView, Irfan, Imagemagick or any other good converter. If you need to pack icons (having several sizes in same ico file, etc) for an app in Windows, Mac OS, iOS, android, etc... that's different. There used to be a bunch of good ones, even those allowing to write directly in the exe, and even modify details in the exe of other nature (I used to work for a software company, this often allowed avoiding a re-compile when there was no time for a fast demo) I really liked during many years the free version of IcoFX. Quite a jewel. Then came the need of making ~500 px sized icons (mostly for OSX back then) and etc, can't remember to what I did switched to. I think IcoFX allows making that too, now. I also vote for the open source imagemagick. Is command-line, but extremely flexible for this and many other things. For visual control and quite many packing features, maybe check the below list. Some focusing on the packing/export, other in drawing....IMO the important for you is to be able to import images, and the export and pack into ico/dll/exe/.icns, etc, as you already have superb and much superior drawing and editing tools in AP/AD. The important part imo is : that they allow importing images, specially PNGs, and of course, exporting / packing features. Even if it does not allow even to paint over it, that's not crucial (having an AP and/or AD license. I've done pixel art with both AP and AD, both pretty reliable in that) This one is online, allows import of images. Pretty basic, but quite enough for many cases. Is not a converter, is an actual editor (but also imports and exports). I dislike any form of online editing tool, though , for some reasons. So, is not in my order of preference : http://www.xiconeditor.com/ The below one is open source, it seems is quite nice. Obviously, completely free . I'm reading that it's powerful. http://greenfishsoftware.org/gfie.php#apage For the mac, this one seems to have a very complete export, and can import already created icons. Is at a no-issues price, 5 $. : https://64bitapps.com/icon-plus-design-beautiful-app-icons-and-logos/ The below one counts on Mac, Windows, and online version. It seems very complete, also, just 5 $. : https://iconverticons.com IcoFx is amazing, used to be my favorite, but... the other ones above are 10x cheaper (I would only be able to use the 50$ version) or free... Also.... would always prefer to do the entire icons in a full editing package like Photoshop (or AP/AD , in this case), and even editing each size by hand. In a hurry, might let the automatic thing generate till 128x128 (512, 256....). But even with those, I used to prefer to retouch by hand, then import for each size in my converter, and pack there the .icns or whatever. A general editing package like AP and AD, with layers and all sort of tools, give you such power that I would never use the much limited painting solutions of many of those editors... just would use the utilities as mere converters/packers...My 2c. EDIT: And yeah, I know is crazy, but I use to do these things in raster, with raster tools... I used to produce mountains of full icon/icns files, complete with all the possible sizes... Is often a matter of how you mount the workflow, using macros/actions/some code, etc) , yes, the best idea is to go vector, though. In this case, raster is not productive, is doable , tho (it's indeed old school).

I reaaaaally really wish they keep their pricing and selling style just the same way.... The lite and pro version is often a way to make the pro really go high in price, and the lite not being really useful for any serious work. They had also very affordable prices in the previous software generation, and they have been among us for many years. So it clearly works for them....

Actually, in Photoshop, at least till CC 2018 (judging by its trial , it is quite a good version, overall, even if eats hardware for breakfast) , at any company, using any version till CS6 at least (been a freelancer for 5 years, so that situation is a bit far away) when checking my illustration or whatever graphic work, I have known since always, that anything not being a pure 100% zoom could lead me to all sort of misleading conclusion. In some cases this can wreck and entire day of work, if one is not aware of this. Sometimes it's the layer effects that it renders them a bit randomly when zooming out, sometimes is the line aliasing, seen weird (in some configurations, this can happen even with the 2018 version), or glitchy, or etc. So, happens to PS and other apps that not checking the thing at 100% can give non accurate renderings. Once knowing, no biggie, but is a pain, as usually the best way to check a composition and/or final piece is having a global glance. Very often, in whatever the app, if I see sth that does not match well my expectations, I instinctively switch to 100% zoom, just in case... The profile matter...yep, I only mentioned as a part of a bit of a random brainstorm....Some people here had this problem of having the sRGB profile by default even when they thought they were reading all in a richer color profile, several threads got solved by discovering this. A traditional shot in the dark, you know. BTW, pls excuse the late reply. Very busy lately....

That is actually very true. I wish I could argue, but I can't , lol. And happens also in my own language. So I guess is just general malfunction. Or that I try to give too much info in the smaller time possible. So, yeah, I can only agree with that.

No, I don't agree. Both PNG and JPEG exports are fine. In the advanced options (there's a button for that which seems to be missed by many) in the export dialog, you can set the PNG to export in other bits depth (plus, one option to keep the bit depth in which whatever the scene file is atm ). Just saying is "poor" (I am seeing a pattern of this in recent days) is so abstract, so undefined, that every time I read this , I really wonder about the real purpose... In any case, it can be a workflow issue. When going from vectors to pixels, common to every package. PNG exported in CMYK ?

There's a recently bumped thread about this, you might want to get some infos there : https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/56739-affinity-photo-color-separation/

Subscription model... I'd be outta here, so, Leigh's post is really nice to hear. (they've mentioned it other times, and besides that, you can clearly see over the years that the thing about pricing is a constant: Always very good pricing.) And..probably wouldn't jump to another commercial alternative. Would go the slower road, to open source (slower only because they count on a lot of less resources, and well, because with those tools and UIs... I am positive I'd be slower, even if I know them very well, for years) . But IMO the Serif's model is a really good one. I dunno, in that horrid case I would might even just go back all traditional painting, with oils and canvas, and traditional comic drawing.... and with the PC...just coding websites, lol. For the plate of food. Pay for updated versions if I need the features. Totally fine. Specially, at this range of prices, would do even if I don't need the features, unless is an update per month, hehe. (that'd be worse than a subscription ) . So, yeah, only one-time (+ upgrades) , non forced purchase software and open source for me, thanks.... And they had these same fears in the drawing communities when was launched Clip Studio Paint as a subscription-only in the iPad... Many warned that CSP for the desktop was also going that road... but no sign in these months points to that... and kind of makes sense... the vast majority of CSP users are amateur AND indy pros, it does not has the large companies market as a safety net for those risky experiments. But from what I am reading everywhere, freelancing is growing, as a model... soon it's gonna be seen as less smart to let freelancers fly to greener fields.... It'd be the way of the Dodo for them. They (Celsys, CSP) indeed have that for the desktop in Japan, BUT... is just a friendlier path for really small pockets... Is like they purchase a final version in quotas. When they reach the total one-time-purchase-cost, the software is theirs like a normal purchase, and they've been using it normally all those months. Sth that would have been accepted from Adobe, but what was/is offered by the top dog was quite different. I do believe is going to be very rare that an alternative, even this good, is going to go for subscription. The one needing to grab the market can't go with same bad habits.... It needs to offer advantages over the standard. There's a strong resistance to leave Adobe, and yet masses are flying away...imagine from an alternative.